MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN

Queen's Speech (Answer to Address)

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows: I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

Double Taxation Relief

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows: I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Georgia) Order 2004 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House on 17 November in the last Session of Parliament. I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Malaria

Bob Spink: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of multilateral aid programmes on malaria eradication delivered through the European Union.

Gareth Thomas: I welcome the European Community's pledge of more than €460 million to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which, together with the contributions of member states, makes the European Union the largest donor to the fund, 30 per cent. of which goes to malaria. The Commission has also allocated more than €350 million for research on vaccines, strengthened prevention methods and better treatment. Given that between 1 million and 3 million people die of malaria each year, however, clearly the international community, including the European Union, needs to do more. That is why we will take forward this issue next year, particularly during our presidency.

Bob Spink: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, which shows that he understands the importance of malaria eradication. Malaria kills more children in Africa than HIV/AIDS. If we are to control our aid priorities and the effectiveness of that aid in tackling malaria and poverty, in Africa in particular, how can the Government justify giving control of a quarter of our aid budget to the European Union, which mismanages and hideously misallocates those funds on such a massive scale?

Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of making progress on tackling malaria. Some 90 per cent. of the 200 million to 500 million malaria cases each year are found in sub-Saharan Africa. I want to place on record my welcome for the all-party group on malaria that has been formed. On his wider point about the European Community, however, the hon. Gentleman needs to recognise the substantial progress that has been made in strengthening the internal management systems of the European Union, and needs to give a little more credit to the EU for the huge progress that it is making in helping to tackle poverty. As I said, the international community needs to do more on malaria, and we will take that forward next year.

David Taylor: The figures that the Minister has announced are most welcome, but does he accept that there is a lack of democratic control and accountability in relation to how EU funding of this kind is spent? Does he agree that such initiatives tend to run against the long-term, predictable aid flows that countries need, so that they can plan effectively over future years?

Gareth Thomas: I am afraid that, on this occasion, I do not agree with my hon. Friend that there is a lack of democratic scrutiny. He is well aware of the scrutiny processes in this House. I also want to pay tribute to the work of MEPs such as Glenys Kinnock, who are helping to push the European Union to do more on such issues. As I have indicated, we need to do more on this matter, which will be a priority for us during our presidency of the European Union, and I look forward to further discussions with my hon. Friend and other Members who are concerned about this issue.

David Chidgey: I am grateful for the Minister's reply so far. He may recall, however, from a previous occasion in the House, that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) and I have visited the Francophone parts of west Africa where malaria is rife, and the refugee camps in particular. It was pointed out to us that there was at least a 90 per cent. chance of refugees catching malaria within one year. The essence is avoiding the complacency that is sweeping into this area. A focus on aid is necessary, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in particular is making a plea now for this Government to work more closely with their counterparts in Liberia, from where the refugee crisis emanates, to help to eradicate these health problems. Will the Minister take that message back to his colleagues and do something about it?

Gareth Thomas: There is absolutely no complacency in my Department or across Government about the threat that malaria poses. That is one of the reasons why we want to step up the work of the European Community and ourselves next year. I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that in Mozambique, for example, at the beginning of next year an £8.5 million programme will start to increase access to bed nets. We need to do more, including getting better progress on a malaria vaccine, which is some 10 years away. We are working with initiatives such as Roll Back Malaria to step up access to bed nets and artemisinin-based combination therapies and to find a malaria vaccine.

European Union Budget

Angela Watkinson: What action he will take following the European Anti-Fraud Office's fifth report on the European Union's budget concerning direct expenditure and external aid.

Gareth Thomas: We take very seriously any accusations of fraud in European Commission aid programmes. Since 2000, we have made support for the reform of the EU's aid programmes and policies a central feature of our own policy. We will continue to support that process, in particular with a package of measures to continue to improve the Commission's financial management and accountability, and by pressing for the continued reform of the Commission's external assistance budget.

Angela Watkinson: The OLAF report on EU overseas aid contains some shocking examples of fraud. For example, £2 million intended for a water project in Lesotho ended up in the Swiss bank account of a local official. There are many other incidences. Instead of concentrating on reforming the procedures, would not it be better to take robust action to ensure that British overseas aid money actually reaches the poorest people in the world?

Gareth Thomas: I welcome the OLAF report from the anti-fraud office, which, as the hon. Lady says, highlights a number of very worrying examples, including the one from Lesotho. I am sure that the hon. Lady will be pleased about the robust action the Lesotho Government are taking to deal with the allegations of corruption, with the support of the anti-fraud office. No doubt she will also be pleased that the European Union is seeking, with our support, to strengthen its financial management systems and modernise its accounting systems—including its computer systems—still further.
	Although those systems need to be strengthened further, we should recognise that the vast bulk of European Community aid goes where it needs to go, and is making a substantial difference to the lives of some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world.

Tony Cunningham: As probably the only Member who has actually written an EU development aid budget, I fully appreciate the deficiencies and problems involved, but there are also benefits. Perhaps my hon. Friend could identify some of them.

Gareth Thomas: We must continue to champion reform, but the European Union and member states are already making a difference, particularly through the contributions to the global fund. That has levered in substantial extra money from the United States and other donors for the fight against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. The humanitarian and development assistance that the European Community is helping to fund in countries as diverse as Haiti, Kosovo and Sudan is, as I said, making a genuine, important difference to the lives of some of the poorest and most vulnerable in the world.

Julian Brazier: No one denies that some of the EU money is well spent, but the OLAF report gives other examples, such as the £10 million that has disappeared through one Italian non-governmental organisation, and the disappearance of 90 per cent. of the money intended to help water projects in Paraguay. The OLAF report refers to
	"the complex and well-organised nature of financial fraud in humanitarian and development EU aid to third countries."
	Is not it time we repatriated some of this money so that it can be better spent where it should be spent?

Gareth Thomas: Repatriation of EC aid would be a complete disaster. It would lead undoubtedly to lower levels of development assistance world wide. Given that we are currently off track to meet the millennium development goals, that is probably just about the worst thing we could do.
	We need to make more progress in tackling fraud and, as I have said, the EU is taking steps to strengthen its financial systems with our support. The vast bulk of EU aid gets to where it is needed. Given that the Conservative party was responsible for the worst misuse of British development assistance, the Pergau dam affair, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman and his party are in any position to dish out lectures on development.

Heavily Indebted Poor Countries

Peter Pike: What proposals his Department has to ensure that heavily indebted poor countries—HIPC—have a robust and sustainable exit strategy from debt after completion of the HIPC programme.

Hilary Benn: The HIPC initiative has reduced the debts of 27 of the world's poorest countries by an average of two thirds, but many are now facing worsening debt ratios once again.That is why we intend to go further and pay the UK's share of the remaining debt service owed to the concessional lending arms of the World Bank and the African Development bank by all countries reaching completion point under HIPC and other low-income countries that can use those resources effectively to reduce poverty. We are encouraging other donors to follow our lead.

Peter Pike: I believe that this Government's international development record is first class, and it is important that we not only help such countries to get out of debt, but ensure a sustainable future and a way ahead for them in years to come. How do we ensure that the Governments of other countries follow this Labour Government's example in tackling this major problem?

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. The first thing that we can do is to point to the benefit of the $70 billion-worth of debt relief that the HIPC scheme has delivered so far. Another very sound argument is that two thirds of the money saved—money that such countries no longer have to spend on servicing debt—has gone into increased health and education spending. Thirdly, we can point out that unless developing countries get more resources, they will be unable to progress towards the millennium development goals of reducing poverty and getting more children into schools. The best thing that we can do, however, is to lead by example, which is why we will be making these payments from 1 January. I hope that other countries will follow our lead so that developing countries can be given greater help on a more predictable basis, in order that they can turn their attention to helping their people and improving their lives.

Tony Baldry: In a letter to the Jubilee Debt Campaign earlier this year, the President of Tanzania said:
	"Tanzania has shown dramatic improvements in essential social services after getting partial debt relief. Clearly much more can be done to meet the Millennium Development goals if we can get total debt cancellation."
	Can the Secretary of State make it clear to the House what the Government's ambitions are on debt during our presidency of the G8 next year? Do we simply hope that other countries will follow our example, or are we actually going to challenge them to cancel third world debt?

Hilary Benn: Of course, Tanzania is one of the countries that will benefit from the new arrangement from 1 January, having reached completion point. The UK Government's first clear objective is to get other countries to support the new initiative on multilateral debt relief, because doing so would represent a real step forward. That can happen only if increased finance is set aside for development and for debt relief, something for which—as the hon. Gentleman knows only too well—debt relief campaigners have long campaigned. Such additional finance will enable additional progress on debt relief. We need to move the argument on from the question of the debt-to-export ratio—the foundation of the HIPC scheme—and consider the resources that developing countries need to make progress in achieving the millennium development goals in the next 10 years. If we can win those three arguments during our presidency of the G8 next year, we will have seen real progress.

Andy Reed: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his early response to the problems with the HIPC scheme. Although it has been a tremendous success in many countries, many others have not benefited as much as we would have liked, despite the enormous sums invested, and we need to take initiatives to ensure that they do. What assessment has he made of other leading G8 countries' willingness to sign up to the new initiative, and does he believe that that can be delivered in 2005? We have a great opportunity to make 2005 the year in which poverty becomes history.

Hilary Benn: First, overall, the HIPC scheme has not just produced $70 billion-worth of debt relief. It is expected that, as a result of it—when the figures finally come in for this period—debt servicing as a percentage of Government revenue in those countries will have declined from an average of more than a quarter in 1998 to below 15 per cent. in 2003. By any measure, that is a real benefit. A number of countries have expressed interest in the proposal that we have put on the table. A lot hinges on the extent to which we are successful next year in encouraging other countries to increase the resources they make available for development. Such additional money could then give rise to the political will to devote some of the money to supporting the debt relief proposals. Next year, the world will judge the G8 and the rest of the developed world on the extent to which we deliver on these commitments, and one important test will be what we do on debt relief.

Tom Brake: Additional aid will be key to any robust and sustainable exit strategy for the HIPC countries. The international finance facility is the Chancellor's preferred method for delivering those additional funds, so will the Secretary of State update the House on what progress has been made on securing the support of the Americans for the IFF? If they continue to remain underwhelmed about those proposals, will it not be time to consider an alternative such as the Tobin tax?

Hilary Benn: No. The Tobin tax, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is a very interesting proposal, but it works only if all the countries in the world sign up to it. Is there a realistic prospect of every country in the world signing up to the Tobin tax? No, there is not. The great merit of the international finance facility, as proposed and strongly argued for by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, is that all the countries in the world do not need to sign up to it for it to deliver additional resources.
	We continue to be in discussions with the United States of America to persuade them of the advantages of the IFF. We have the support of France and, recently, Italy, and we hope to demonstrate in the near future the strength of the IFF model by working with the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation to increase the support that we can give for vaccinations. In the process, we shall seek to demonstrate the strength of the idea of the IFF as a way of raising the additional development finance that we need now.

Vaccination

Anthony D Wright: How his Department's policy on vaccination is targeted.

Hilary Benn: Vaccination saves people's lives, especially children's. We fund the World Health Organisation and UNICEF to work with poor countries to help their vaccination programmes, and we work with Governments to help build up their health services to make sure that vaccines get to poor people. We also fund the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation, as I mentioned a few moments ago, and we are planning the international finance facility for immunisation to ensure that more children get immunised more quickly.

Anthony D Wright: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and I congratulate the Government on the investment that they are putting into new technology. They are helping scientists to take the technology forward and remove vaccinations from the cold chain. According to the World Health Organisation, under current budgets that will mean 10 million more vaccinations being made available in the world. Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the relevant budget will not be cut and that funds will be diverted to ensure that 10 million more vaccinations will be made available across the continents of the world?

Hilary Benn: I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that if we can save expenditure on vaccines that is currently wasted because of failures within the refrigeration chain, those resources could be invested to provide more vaccinations. He refers to the research, which DFID helped to fund, which was undertaken by Cambridge Biostability Ltd. It helped to develop a way of storing vaccines—it will now go to trials—that does not involve refrigeration, representing potentially an enormous step forward for vaccination.
	Secondly, we are working with GAVI through the international finance facility model, with the aim of creating a fund of $4 billion, which would enable much more vaccination to take place. We are now very close to eradicating polio, for example, with 2 billion children immunised across the world. An estimated 5 million children can walk normally today because of the progress made in vaccination against polio. That demonstrates the benefits of the world doing more to protect the lives of our children.

Michael Fabricant: What research does the Department undertake on the efficacy of vaccines in all instances when there may be alternative methods of protecting people from infection? In particular, I am thinking of malaria. The Secretary of State knows that his Department funds an immunisation programme, but in certain areas where transmissibility is not high—in South Africa, northern Kenya and Angola—it has been suggested that the money could be better spent on the provision of nets and other forms of prophylaxis. What research has been undertaken on that and will the Secretary of State consider the possibility of transferring money from the vaccination programme to that alternative if it is clear that it would provide a more effective way of protecting people's lives?

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. The honest answer to his question is that we need to do both and we are doing both. Where investment can, through the research programme, find new and more effective vaccines to protect children's lives, it is right to pursue that. This is one area of work that DFID's new chief scientific adviser, Professor Gordon Conway, who takes up the post in January, will be pursuing. However, we already fund a wide range of programmes to get bed nets to children. I was in Tanzania three weeks ago and President Mkapa was opening a new bed net factory. We have a big programme in that country. If we can get people—children in particular—across sub-Saharan Africa sleeping under insecticide-treated bed nets, we could save a lot of children's lives every year.

Africa (Aid)

Desmond Turner: What his priorities are for aid expenditure in Africa.

Hilary Benn: The UK will provide over £1 billion in aid to Africa next year. Our priorities are to help build the conditions for development by promoting peace, democracy and economic growth, to help Africa progress towards the millennium development goals with HIV/AIDS—reducing child and maternal mortality and tackling hunger as priorities—and to help build Africa's capacity to develop itself. We will provide substantial assistance to the African Union and to support the recommendations of the Africa Commission.

Desmond Turner: Having also visited Malawi recently, my hon. Friend will be as aware as I am of the appalling difficulties facing health provision in that country due to the sheer lack of human capacity in terms of trained health workers to deliver the goods. What plans does he have to increase the human capacity of countries in Africa such as Malawi? Without extra trained people, all the free or cheap anti-retroviral drugs in the world will not help the massive problem of AIDS in those countries.

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend makes a very important point about a country where, over the past 10 years, average life expectancy has fallen from 48 years to 39 and where there is a public health emergency. On 3 December, I announced a new programme worth £100 million that we have developed with the Government of Malawi. It will increase salaries for doctors and nurses by 50 per cent. and in part is aimed at helping to recruit the 800 or so qualified nurses living in Malawi who do not currently work in the health service. The programme will also increase Malawi's total aid budget by 30 per cent. and train more doctors and nurses. In the meantime, to fill some of the very many vacancies in the Malawian health service, it will pay for volunteer doctors and nurses to go to that country, and they will start arriving over the next six months. Ours is a very practical programme and we are able to pay for it because we have a rising aid budget in Africa.

Alan Duncan: Because of the scale of poverty in Africa, and because aid resources are obviously limited, priorities have to be set. However, it appears that the Copenhagen consensus, with a team of eminent economists, chose a set of priorities different from those just outlined by the Secretary of State. The Copenhagen economists said that the top three priorities were the need to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS, the need to combat malnutrition and hunger, and the need to encourage freer and fairer trade. On what academic basis has the right hon. Gentleman's Department reached such a different conclusion?

Hilary Benn: I do not agree that we have reached a different conclusion, because we are working on all three of those matters. The hon. Gentleman will be only too well aware that in 1997, the UK was spending £38 million a year through its development programme in the fight against HIV/AIDS and to promote reproductive and sexual health. Next year, and in the two years after that, Britain will put £500 million a year into the fight against HIV/AIDS and to promote reproductive and sexual health. By any measure, that is a very substantial increase and it is due to the fact that we have a rising aid programme. We are doing all the things that the Copenhagen consensus outlined in its document, but we are also investing—unapologetically—in improving health and education. If we do not improve the health services, it will be very difficult to get treatment to people suffering from HIV/AIDS.

Alan Duncan: Let us assume for a moment that we accept the Secretary of State's priorities. If he accepts the need for prioritisation such as he has described when determining how our aid budget is allocated, why is he happy to give a quarter of our total aid budget to the EU, which spends only half of its funds on tackling poverty in the poorest countries? If the Government want to apply their poverty reduction criteria effectively, how can they justify the diversion of a quarter of the aid that they give through a channel that applies completely different criteria?

Hilary Benn: First, as my hon. Friend the Minister made clear in answer to the first question this afternoon, there has been a real process of reform in the European Union, which I welcome but which needs to continue. Secondly, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in supporting the Government's push to get the arguments that he has just advanced heard better in the European Union, because it is unacceptable that a falling proportion of the EU's development budget is spent on the poorest countries in the world, including in Africa. All of us need to work hard to increase that proportion, because the need is greatest in those countries and we need to ensure that all our resources, including those that go via the EU—

Alan Duncan: indicated assent.

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman agrees with me; I am grateful for his support.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Angela Watkinson: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 December.

Tony Blair: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Angela Watkinson: Yesterday, the Prime Minister refused to allow a free vote to his colleagues on the Mental Capacity Bill. Why did he not vote himself?

Tony Blair: Well, I do not always vote on measures, but of course I supported the Government's position. I will explain why I did not feel that it was right to have a free vote on the issue. I understand that there are strong feelings on both sides of the House on the issue, but there are also very important public policy considerations. Just as we must ensure that we protect people and their interests properly—the amendments that we will table in the House of Lords will see to that—it is also important that we do not end up in a situation in which doctors and consultants are confused about the law and may lay themselves open to prosecution in circumstances in which no sensible person would want that to happen.

Anthony D Wright: Unemployment in my constituency has fallen by 40 per cent. since 1997. However, we still have twice the national and regional average unemployment in my constituency. One of the projects that may regenerate Great Yarmouth is the new outer harbour project, which has been in being for the past five or six years. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Department for Transport when a decision will be made on that project and encourage it to provide an affirmative answer in terms of the public funding for that project?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend and I have discussed the outer harbour project in his constituency and I know the very strong feelings in the area about it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is considering at present whether public funding for a new outer harbour at Great Yarmouth is justified and no doubt he will get back to my hon. Friend shortly.
	My hon. Friend is right to say that unemployment has fallen in his constituency. Today's figures show that there are now nearly 2 million more people in work than in 1997; unemployment is at its lowest rate for 30 years; and the new deal has helped 1 million people into work. That is why it would be so irresponsible to do what the Leader of the Opposition wants and cut the new deal programme that has helped so many of our constituents up and down Britain.

Michael Howard: The Prime Minister promised that Labour would do everything in its power to end the scandal of families sleeping in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The number of people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has almost doubled since he came to office. How does he explain that failure?

Tony Blair: First, in respect of homelessness, many of the families that are characterised as homeless do actually have accommodation, but it is temporary accommodation. The numbers of people sleeping rough on the streets have been cut dramatically by two thirds. As opposed to the situation in 1997, more than 80 per cent. of homeless households in temporary accommodation are in good quality, self-contained homes, and the vast majority are not in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
	Let me make one further point to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We are going to increase the housing budget and the budget for the homeless over the next few years. Under the proposals of the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is set to freeze the housing budget—perhaps he will confirm that—and that would cut £400 million from that budget.

Michael Howard: But none of that answers the question. The Prime Minister has had seven and a half years. He called it a scandal and promised to end it; it has almost doubled. He promised to cut truancy by a third. Figures yesterday show that truancy has gone up by nearly a third: 1 million children play truant each year. How does he explain that failure?

Tony Blair: Let me come back to the promise about housing. It was to cut rough sleepers and we have done that very substantially indeed—[Interruption.] No, I am sorry. I am not letting the right hon. and learned Gentleman get away with this. In respect of temporary accommodation, the change today is that the vast majority of those 100,000 people are in good quality, self-contained homes. How does he square his supposed commitment to the homeless with cutting their budget? He did not answer that question. Perhaps he will now.
	In respect of truancy, it is correct; we have accepted that we have not met the truancy target. However, there are in fact 43,000 extra pupils attending school today, which is important. Double the number of pupils are in the pupil referral units. I accept that there is much more to do on truancy, but overall in respect of education we have improved investment, all school results are up and according to the latest report our primary schools have succeeded faster than any other country in Europe. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is committed, under his voucher scheme, to take £1 billion out of the school system. Perhaps he will confirm that that is the case.

Michael Howard: Once again, the Prime Minister has failed to answer the question. He has not explained the reason for his failure. Let us look at another of the Prime Minister's promises. He promised to increase the rate at which criminals are caught, but detection rates, which improved by more than 10 per cent. when I was Home Secretary, have worsened by more than 10 per cent. under his Government. It is now easier to commit a crime and get away with it than at any time in the last 25 years. How does he explain that failure?

Tony Blair: That is simply not the case—[Interruption.] No, no. We have been having correspondence on the crime statistics, and I am delighted to tell the House that I have been looking in a little detail at what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been saying about them. The British crime survey shows that crime has fallen, not risen, under this Government. He keeps saying that recorded crime has gone up and has prayed in aid the Crime and Society Foundation paper, which he says proves that crime has gone up under this Government. Unfortunately for him, the director of the foundation has written the following letter:
	"Michael Howard does not accurately represent my analysis . . . I do not argue that there are 'significant flaws' with the British Crime Survey. I argue that the British Crime Survey offers a far more accurate picture of the crimes it measures."

Michael Howard: The Prime Minister did not even mention detection rates. Three questions asked; none of them answered. Let us try another one.
	"When Labour came to office we had one of the strongest pension provisions in Europe and now probably we have some of the weakest."
	Those are the words of the Prime Minister's first Pensions Minister. How does he explain that failure?

Tony Blair: We have put more than £10 billion a year into support for pensioners. The poorest 10 per cent. of pensioners are some £40 a week better off as a result of the measures we have taken. Women have benefited particularly from the pension credit; two thirds of those who get it are women. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will confirm that he plans to abolish the state second pension. If he does that, it will make those women £40 a week worse off.

Michael Howard: The Prime Minister has not explained any of those failures. Let me see if I can help. I know that he is going abroad over the holidays and I have some holiday reading for him—the new biography of the Home Secretary, hot off the press today. The front cover says that it paints a portrait of an enigmatic man that will surprise even those who think they know him. I particularly recommend to the Prime Minister the Home Secretary's helpful assessment of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues. Will the Prime Minister promise to read the book carefully, so that when he comes back to the House in the new year he can give a full explanation of his Government's total failure to deliver? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Prime Minister answer.

Tony Blair: Actually, I have some holiday reading of my own lined up, a volume of diaries by a certain Woodrow Wyatt. [Laughter.] We could do a swap of reading matter. In the diaries—this is not a laughing matter because of what it says about the Tories; just listen to this—he recalls a meeting with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on 19 March 1991. [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear the Prime Minister.

Tony Blair: That was when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was Employment Secretary. Just listen to this:
	"Michael Howard didn't agree with my view that we should have a June election . . . before it was realized how serious the underlying recession had been and unemployment went on going up. He said, 'Unemployment never matters.'"
	[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] And it did not matter to him, because when he was Employment Secretary unemployment went up by 1 million; now he is committed to cutting the new deal that has helped 1 million people. He can make his jokes about that book, but unemployment does matter to this Government and that is the difference between this Government and that Opposition. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

John McFall: Despite the welcome engagement between the Lord Chancellor and His Grace Archbishop Peter Smith on the issue of euthanasia by omission, including food and fluid, there is still a concern among a number of Members on this issue. Can the Government give us an assurance that they will embrace the spirit of new clauses 1 and 2, for which I did not vote? To ensure that we bring clarity and sense to such a complex and sensitive issue, will the Prime Minister meet a delegation of concerned Members so that we get on the statute book a very welcome and appropriate Mental Capacity Bill?

Tony Blair: I thank my right hon. Friend for the very reasonable way that he puts his point. I would of course be happy to meet him and his colleagues. Importantly, the Making Decisions Alliance said yesterday—it is an alliance representing some 40 charities whose words should at least carry some weight for us—
	"the Bill could finally give those we work with real control over their day to day lives . . . All of this could be lost if the Bill is sabotaged by misplaced fears about euthanasia".
	There is obviously an issue of concern and this is what the Catholic Archbishop raised with me yesterday. We will do everything we can to meet that concern and make sure that we avoid any doubt about the purport of the Bill, but let us be quite clear that what is right is to make it clear that someone's life cannot be ended intentionally. That must be right. I hope, though, that the whole House understands that what would be wrong—this is what we were advised that the amendment that we voted against yesterday would do—would be to end up in a situation where the Tony Bland judgment was overturned. That would be very damaging for relatives, for individuals and for the medical profession. So we need to make sure that we take account of the very sensible points that have been made by my right hon. Friend, but that we do not end up giving ourselves and, indeed, the medical profession, a serious public policy problem. That would be wrong and I could not endorse it.

Charles Kennedy: On the Government's proposed identity card system, two weeks ago, when I asked him, the Prime Minister failed to rule out of consideration for the running of that system any company that had been previously associated with earlier computer fiascos, such as those involved with the Child Support Agency or tax credits. To put people's minds at rest, will he give us that assurance today?

Tony Blair: No, I have simply got to say that the tendering procedures will be done in the normal and proper way. I cannot give undertakings about that now. We have simply got to ensure that we get the most cost-effective way of delivering the system. I really do not think that this is about the contracts for the system; what it is about is whether hon. Members support the idea of identity cards as being of some use in the fight against illegal immigration, terrorism and the abuse of public services. I happen to believe that, in this day and age, particularly because we are moving towards biometric passports, it sensible to have identity cards.

Charles Kennedy: On the latter point, is that not one of the problems particularly associated with compulsory identity cards for people living in outlying areas—for example, pensioners or disabled people—who will face long and expensive journeys into cities to go to the secure centres where they will have their iris scans or their fingerprints taken to get the ID card? That leads many of us to ask this question: have the Government actually thought through the practical implications for people of the scheme that they propose?

Tony Blair: First, as we know in the House, this issue has been debated over many years, and compulsory ID cards will not come in for several years in any event. So there is a long period in which we can get this right—it is obviously important that we do. The point that I would make is that what has changed my mind on identity cards is that we now have the technology and, indeed, will effectively be obliged to use it for passports, which represents the bulk of the cost—£70 out of the £85 is for the passport, which we will have to introduce in any event. It makes sense in my judgment, when we have this biometric technology and when it really can make a difference on some of these issues—this is a common consensus certainly among the police and enforcement services—that we make it clear that ID cards will be introduced. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right, however, to raise a series of practical difficulties and objections. It is exactly those that we need to iron out over the next few years.

Neil Turner: A number of my constituents have reported to me the theft of their telephone lines, which comes to light only when they get their bills and people threaten to cut them off. The numbers are intercepted via the internet and then used to make international premium rate calls. Will my right hon. Friend use the UK presidency of the EU and the G8 to take international action to stop that theft, which causes great distress to hard-working families and could fund international terrorism and organised crime?

Tony Blair: I understand the importance of this issue, and I am aware that it is a big issue for many hon. Members. I can tell my hon. Friend that the Government have asked Ofcom to review the regulation of premium rate services to tighten things up in response to these complaints. That review was published on 9 December, and it makes new recommendations that, I hope, will help to deal with the problem. On the other hand, the legitimate use of premium rate numbers, for everything from weather forecasts to TV shows, is a £1 billion-a-year industry, so we have to ensure that that regulation strikes a sensible balance.

Sue Doughty: This year, four children and their families will spend Christmas in St. Christopher's hospice in my constituency. I am sure that the Prime Minister will want to join me in paying tribute to the children's hospice movement and its work with life-limited children and their families, but the hospices receive no Government funding. Money from primary care trusts just does not get there. Will the Prime Minister consider options to ring-fence health service funding to guarantee children's hospices an equivalent level of funding as that received by adult hospices?

Tony Blair: I certainly would pay tribute to the children's hospice movement, which does an extraordinary job up and down the country in many different constituencies, but I simply say to the hon. Lady that I do not think that I can promise to do what she asks. We are obviously increasing the investment in the health service very considerably. We do look at what more we can do for the hospice movement, but I do not think that ring-fencing would be the right thing to do.

James Purnell: Dame Janet Smith published her final report on Harold Shipman's murders last week. Does the Prime Minister agree that the House should have an opportunity early in the new year to have a full debate on all her recommendations? Will he pay tribute to the meticulous and sensitive way in which she and her team have done their work? In particular, will he consider her recommendation that the review of the coroner service should be fully funded, because that is the least that we could do for the victims of Harold Shipman and their families?

Tony Blair: May I first say that I am grateful to Dame Janet Smith and her team for the care and attention that went into the preparation of each of her reports? I reiterate the Government's sympathy to the relatives and friends of Shipman's victims and express our thanks to them for their valuable contribution to the inquiry's work. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is meeting Dame Janet Smith today. Her reports make several recommendations, which we will obviously study carefully. Some are complex, but we hope to be able to make a considered statement on them reasonably shortly.

Tony Baldry: Bullingdon prison was built to accommodate 600 people, but it now has to house 900 men. The Home Office appears to be so cash strapped that the governor has been told that she cannot spend even a penny on improving conditions, yet the same Home Office, on the other side of the road, is about to spend £60 million on an asylum centre, which the Refugee Council says is totally inappropriate for the needs of refugees. I appreciate that there are few votes in prisons, but does the Prime Minister think that we should all be ashamed by the extent of prison overcrowding?

Tony Blair: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about prison overcrowding. It is a serious problem, which is why we will expand prison places by several thousand over the next few years. We are actually setting aside additional money for that—several hundred million pounds. That is precisely to ensure not only that people who should go to prison do so, but that those who are in prison are given proper help and rehabilitation. I agree that overcrowding causes a problem with that, but surely it is better to increase investment, as we are doing, than to freeze the Home Office budget, which is his right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor's suggestion.

Judy Mallaber: The Department of Health environment access team assessed Heanor Memorial hospital in my constituency as having cleanliness of a good standard throughout and providing delicious, excellent quality food. Will my right hon. Friend investigate how that audit was presented to make it appear that Heanor hospital was one of 27 allegedly dirty hospitals—thus meaning that it appeared under lurid headlines—although its poor ratings had nothing whatsoever to do with cleanliness, but were solely concerned with design and its limited space for such facilities as car parking, storage and the hospital shop?

Tony Blair: I congratulate everyone who works at my hon. Friend's hospital on their excellent work. On lurid headlines, however, if I had it in my power to avoid them at any time, I would probably start somewhere different, but I would certainly end up sorting her ones out.

John Taylor: Will Sir Alan Budd's inquiry be extended to include the latest allegations regarding a second visa for travel to Austria?

Tony Blair: That is a matter for Sir Alan Budd.

Piara S Khabra: May I welcome the Government's policy on the building of new, affordable housing, especially in the light of last week's report by the National Housing Federation on homelessness, which highlighted the challenges facing many of the poor in the UK? I know that the Conservative party does not support that policy at all. Will the Prime Minister assure me that his Government will consider more flexible and lower targets when necessary for areas such as Southall in my constituency? That area is already overcrowded and overdeveloped and its local services and infrastructure are stretched to the limit in meeting the needs of the community. Furthermore, can I ask—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is allowed only one supplementary.

Tony Blair: First, of course we keep carefully under review exactly how such targets relate to particular areas of London. We have increased the provision for affordable housing in London by somewhere in the region of £650 million to £750 million. We are also doing a lot for thousands of key workers and public service workers—some will live in my hon. Friend's constituency—by helping them with housing finance from the Government. In addition, we will publish new housing plans in the new year, which I hope will help first-time buyers to get their feet on the rungs of the housing ladder. Again, I simply point out to the House that although I am sure that there is a lot more that we have to do, freezing the housing budget and thus cutting £400 million from it, which is the Conservative party's policy, would be a disaster.

Patrick Cormack: As it is essential that there should be widespread public confidence in any identity card system, does the Prime Minister agree that that Bill is an ideal one to be committed to a Joint Select Committee of both Houses?

Tony Blair: I will not give that commitment now, but I undertake to consider that suggestion carefully.

Louise Ellman: Liverpool has been transformed under a Labour Government, with unemployment halved and the city designated European city of culture, yet the Rowntree Foundation has shown that there are still far too many children in Liverpool growing up in poverty and in households without work. What can the Government do differently to change this unacceptable situation?

Tony Blair: What my hon. Friend says is right. Liverpool is a city in the process of transformation. I know that its designation as a city of culture has generated enormous enthusiasm in the city. Unemployment rates have come down considerably and living standards have risen, but my hon. Friend is right—there is still a great deal more to do. That is why it is important that we keep programmes such as the new deal for the unemployed and Sure Start, and the record investment going into our health, education and services, on the basis of people's need, not their ability to pay. Those are all policies that we as a Government will continue to implement. In the light of the huge spending commitments and then spending cuts that have been proposed by the Opposition, the people of Liverpool will have a very clear choice at the next election.

John Baron: The Prime Minister will recall that I have raised with him on a number of occasions the fact that our planning laws clearly fail to deal with determined Travellers who buy green-belt land and then illegally and speedily develop it. As a result, many law-abiding residents living close to those illegal encampments are being discriminated against. Following our meeting, to which he kindly agreed, will the Prime Minister now respond to my letter to him dated 20 October, for which I got an acknowledgement but no substantive response? The letter set out further details about my private Member's Bill on the issue, which had good cross-party support but was blocked by the Government without explanation.

Tony Blair: First, I should explain why I have not got back to the hon. Gentleman since 20 October, other than the normal courtesy reply. The reason is that in the next few weeks we will bring forward proposals that deal specifically with the issues that he raised. The question is whether the new power of local authorities to get a stop notice quickly and to implement it quickly will be sufficient, or whether we have to take the further steps that the hon. Gentleman suggested. I said when we met that the points that he was making were perfectly reasonable. I need to check, however—and it is right that the Department checks— what the implications of that are, and in particular whether the new powers, which I believe have been brought in over the past few weeks, are adequate, or whether we need to take further steps. I will get back to the hon. Gentleman shortly, but there was no point in responding until the final decisions had been made.

Kevin Brennan: Many parents will welcome the fact that in the new year the child trust fund will be payable to babies. It is welcome news over Christmas, but could the Prime Minister make it even better news, as the Chancellor is sitting next to him, by asking the Chancellor to make sure that any backdated payments have interest paid on them, and also by preventing money being taken from people in the future by any party that seeks to abolish the trust fund?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend's question has had a rapid effect as I understand that interest will be paid from the date of accrual, September 2002. The child trust fund is an important proposal. It should be supported in all parts of the House. It is an extremely regressive move on the part of the Conservatives, who I believe are opposed to it now, as are the Liberal Democrats—united in error. The child trust fund will be welcomed by many families throughout the country, and of course by children as they grow up.

Richard Taylor: Does the Prime Minister agree that the Government's handling of yesterday's Mental Capacity Bill debate was lamentable, and that it leads to a decision that should have been made by this House being passed weakly to the House of Lords?

Tony Blair: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. It was important for us to be able to respond to the claims that were being made. The legal advice that we have is very clear: the Bill as originally framed would not have had the effect that those who are campaigning against it say. However, when it is clear that there is a widespread doubt as to whether that is the case, it is surely sensible for the Government to listen to that doubt and take account of it, and to come back to people and say that we will table amendments at the House of Lords stage that will make it clear that, while the Bland judgment will remain in being, we will not in any shape or form countenance the deliberate killing of people. I would have thought that that position would recommend itself to everyone.

Points of Order

Lembit �pik: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your forbearance to enable me to[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We need some order.

Lembit �pik: I seek your forbearance, Mr. Speaker, to enable me to apologise to the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, for misrepresenting his position in my contribution following his statement on 30 November 2004 regarding the allegation of abuse at Deepcut Army barracks. I accused him on that occasion of referring to the four deaths as suicides. Having studied the official record, I can see that I was wrong to do so. He made no reference to the events at Deepcut in that context. It was in fact the Army that told my constituents, Des and Doreen James, that their daughter Cheryl had committed suicide before the coroner had even reported. The Minister did not do that. As he said to me in his letter:
	Those of us in positions of knowledge and responsibility have an added duty to ensure that we do not further confuse the situation with misinformation.
	I agree with him, and as the campaign for a full independent public inquiry into the four deaths continues I hope that I will be able to work effectively with him. I hope that he will accept my apology.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the Minister will accept the hon. Gentleman's apologies, and I thank him for putting the record straight.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will just have witnessed a disgraceful episode in which the Government Chief Whip hurled a substantial book across the Chamber at my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) on the Front Bench. Will you now sort out the Government Chief Whip and throw the book at her?

Mr. Speaker: I have tried to sort out a few hon. Members, but I shall not do so today. I do not want to tackle the Chief Whip; it is Christmas, after all. It would be best if the exchange of Christmas gifts were conducted outside the Chamber.

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the point of order that I raised with Mr. Deputy Speaker yesterday at column 1584, in which I pointed out that certain documents had been made available to Government Members, but were not available in the Vote Office before the debate and the vote took place? Mr. Deputy Speaker was helpful in his guidance as to what future practice should be. However, this morning on the radio, the Lord Chancellor said that the documents were available in the Vote Office to Members. They clearly were not available in the Vote Office to Members before the vote took place. Is there any way in which we can get the Lord Chancellor to come to this House to apologise for both misleading the House and telling an untruth?

Mr. Speaker: When we refer to a senior Member of the other place, we should use temperate language. The Lord Chancellor did not mislead the House, and my Deputy, Sir Michael Lord, acted correctly and gave the proper guidance. The hon. Gentleman has made an allegationat this stage, it is an allegationthat material was distributed from the civil servants Box.

Patrick McLoughlin: It was.

Mr. Speaker: I was not in the Chamber at the time, so it is an allegation as far as I am concerned. I have made a Speaker's statement about the conduct of the civil servants Box. The only communications that should be conducted from that Box are via a Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Minister, one document at a time. I shall write to the Lord Chancellor and have instructed my officials to prepare a letter. I will not allow the mass distribution of documents and, if the allegation is correct, I will go as far as withdrawing privileges from civil servants who come into that BoxI take the matter very seriously. The hon. Gentleman has put the allegation to me and I will raise it with the Lord Chancellor.

George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have pointed out that intemperate comments are sometimes made when hon. Members raise points of order. What is the difference between a point of order raised by the Opposition deputy Chief Whip from the Dispatch Box and a point of order raised by him when he purports to be a Back Bencher? Is that not abuse of his paid position?

Mr. Speaker: No, it is not abuse. If it had been abuse, I would have pointed it out. I have known the right hon. Gentleman for many years, and he has sailed close to the wind on a few occasions in this Chamber.

William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, much of yesterday's shambles came from the misuse of the programme motion, which meant that adequate time was not available to discuss the matters in question. Is there some means that you can employ to give guidanceif no moreon the imperative need to discuss those incredibly important amendments after the House of Lords has examined them in the proper time on the Floor of the House of Commons to remedy yesterday's disgraceful shambles?

Mr. Speaker: Those matters are for the usual channels. The neutrality of the Speaker is important at all times and I will not be drawn into the arguments posed by the hon. Gentleman.

Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday's Northern Ireland news reported on a young man who contracted variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease some years ago and who was left by the medical profession as a terminally ill person. However, his parents nursed him and his father fought in the High Court to get him particular new forms of treatment. Yesterday, it was announced that the health workers from the hospice and voluntary sector are withdrawing their help because he is no longer terminally ill. Have you received a request from a Health Minister to make a statement in the House both to encourage that treatment and to urge greater caution in diagnosing people as terminally ill?

Mr. Speaker: I am deeply saddened by the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises about his constituent and his family. This is a matter that the Minister would have to take note of. No doubt he will read in Hansard about the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises.

Phil Woolas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may be helpful to the House, in response to the point of order raised at column 1584 by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), to the ruling by Mr. Deputy Speaker and to your own comments today, if I could give the House the assurance that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will of course co-operate fully in ensuring that the facts are properly put on record as to what did happen yesterday with the distribution of letters. We do take these commitments very seriously. Our own investigation shows that the proper distribution methods were undertaken, but we will of course wish to present the House and you, Mr. Speaker, with the full facts to satisfy, I hope, hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman; that is very helpful to me.

BILLS PRESENTED

Criminal Defence Service

Mr. David Lammy, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Peter Hain and Mr. Christopher Leslie, presented a Bill to make provision about representation funded as part of the Criminal Defence Service: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 14].

Transport (Wales)

Mr. Peter Hain, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Ms Secretary Hewitt, Mr. Paul Boateng, Ruth Kelly, Mr. David Lammy and Mr Don Touhig, presented a Bill to make provision about transport to, from and within Wales: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 15].

European Affairs

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Jack Straw: Prime Minister Balkenende of the Netherlands will chair the European Council in Brussels tomorrow and Friday. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I will be there representing the United Kingdom. Today, the House has its customary opportunity to debate the Government's priorities before that Council.
	The main business

Tony Baldry: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Jack Straw: I will give way in due course, but the hon. Gentleman must allow me more than two sentences.

Tony Baldry: On this point?

Jack Straw: Whether it is on this point or notI am not that generous.
	The main business of the Council will be a decision on opening membership negotiations with Turkey. Before I come to that, let me go through some other key issues on the agenda.
	We expect some discussion at the Council of the European Union's budget for 200713. The budget negotiations are still at an early stage, and the Government welcome the work done so far by the Dutch presidency. The European Council will discuss a progress report and the presidency will seek to agree principles and guidelines for the continuing negotiations. For our part, we want to ensure that the money is spent effectively; that the budget is affordable; and that EU programmes are pursued only where they add value. More generally, we have made it clear that we seek an EU budget limited to 1 per cent. of Europe's gross national income, as opposed to the 1.24 per cent. that is currently proposed by the Commission. France, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden share our view, and we have made our common position clear in public.

William Cash: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Jack Straw: I will, but I want to get through a little bit more before I first give way to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry).
	There may also be some discussion at the Council of how the EU raises its revenuethe so-called own resources system. All member states have to agree to any changes, especially those that are net contributors, and everyone has a veto. We will oppose any attempt to reopen the discussion on the UK's budget rebate, whichas we continue to make forcibly clearis fully justified.
	The Council will also discuss a number of foreign policy issues, including EU support for the Palestinian elections in January and the situation in Ukraine. It is worth reminding the House that this is common European foreign policy in practice. If the UK decides not to work with other countries, there is no such policyas, for example, there was not in respect of Iraqbecause the policy requires the agreement of every one of the EU's member states. That will remain emphatically the case under the new EU constitutional treaty.
	However, there are clearly many issues on which 25 nations speaking as one have a great deal more influence than we would on our own. On the middle east, the EU's membership of the Quartetwhich also includes the United States, Russia and the United Nationshelps us actively to support the peace process. The EU is one of the biggest donors to the Palestinian Authority.
	If anyone wants a good example of a common foreign policy working in practice, it is the united EU response and consistent message about the need for a free and fair electoral process that helped to resolve the political crisis in the Ukraine. The Presidents of Poland and Lithuania and EU High Representative Javier Solana playedan important role in that by helping to facilitate talks between the parties. The second round of the presidential elections will be rerun on our Boxing day and the EU is maintaining pressure for that free and fair rerun of the election. We discussed it in detail at the Foreign Ministers Council on Monday and we will contribute observers to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe election mission.

Henry Bellingham: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Jack Straw: No, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Banbury.

Tony Baldry: Twice a year, we have an opportunity for a day of group therapy on Europe, but European competence covers many Departments. For example, it involves trade policy, migration policy and development policy. Yet junior Ministers from the other Departments do not even do us the courtesy of attending the debate. [Interruption.] I am referring to the Government. Will the Foreign Secretary give the House an undertaking to relay to other Cabinet Ministers points that are made in today's debate that specifically relate to their Departments? Otherwise, we are simply speaking to the wind and the Chamber becomes a senate of Lilliput.

Jack Straw: There is a general problem, which affects both sides of the House, about attendance in the Chamber. It has more to do with Back-Bench than Front-Bench attendance. In my 25 years experience, Front Benchers in such debates constitute only the Whips and the Ministers who are involved.
	On the second point, I take seriously what the House says about the European Unionand any other issue. We initiated and established arrangements, which meant Parliament's full and active involvement in the Convention and the intergovernmental conference.

Menzies Campbell: indicated assent.

Jack Straw: I am glad to have the approbation of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). Hon. Members of all parties made suggestions and, consequently, beneficial changes were made to the Convention text, which is now a good text. I look forward to its general endorsement. On non-attendance, the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) did not turn up once to the proceedings of the Special Standing Committee that preceded the IGC. Conservatives stayed away and I regret that.

William Cash: rose

Jack Straw: On cue, here is one who turned up.

William Cash: I am glad that the Foreign Secretary has given way because I am sure that he would not accuse me of not being present. On his opening remarks on budgets, does he accept the report from the university of Bonn, to which Wolfgang Munchau referred in the Financial Times the day before yesterday? The report stated that the main effect of the stability and growth pactthe Foreign Secretary knows that I vigorously opposed that even under a Conservative Governmenthas been to encourage countries to cheat by misreporting their deficits. Does not he regard that as a serious problem? Why do not the Government repudiate the stability and growth pact?

Jack Straw: Assiduous though I am in reading around the subject, I have not read the report from the university of Bonn and I also omitted to read the column in the Financial Times. We have made it clear that we support amendments to the stability and growth pactmy right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made that crystal clear. However, I stress that there is no ground whatever for countries that are members of the EU to fiddle their national statistics.

Henry Bellingham: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Jack Straw: No, I shall make some progress and then I shall take interventions.
	I am pleased that our work on Iran has been endorsed by all sides. Our work with France, Germany and the EU in the past 14 months has secured agreement by Iran to suspend all uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing activities. On Monday, my French and German colleagues, EU High Representative Javier Solana and I met Dr Hassan Rouhani, Secretary General of Iran's supreme national security council, in Brussels to begin the process of negotiation on longer-term arrangements with Iran. One of the purposes of the negotiation is to provide objective guarantees that Iran's nuclear programme can be used only for peaceful purposes. That is the reality of EU common foreign policy, not the fantastical accusations that we so often hear from the Opposition. It shows how Britain benefits from the role that we play in the European Union, increasing our influence and impact in the world without in any way detracting from our independence of action. As we can have the best of both worldswe can be independent and autonomous when we want but work with our partners when we wantI cannot for the life of me understand the logic adopted by the Opposition, particularly the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes, who now says that the common foreign and security policy should be abandoned. That would merely weaken Britain's influence in the world without adding to our autonomy in any way. It is even odder, given that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was an arch-proponent of Maastricht in 1992 and made lurid speeches in favour of it. He even said, as the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will recall, that he would rather be inside a superstate.

Graham Brady: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that one of our anxieties about the common security and foreign policy concerns the Government's refusal to answer questions about things that are being done in our name by the EU high representative, particularly the meetings that he has apparently had either with representatives of Hamas or with other individuals representing Hamas? To be told that information on those contacts is not held by the British Government when we hear regularly that such contact is taking place is simply not acceptable. The Government cannot pursue a foreign policy by proxy but refuse to answer questions on it.

Jack Straw: That is a nonsensical point.

Denis MacShane: It is a red herring.

Jack Straw: Indeed. It is complete nonsense to suggest that the touchstone for Europe and whether we support or reject a European foreign and security policy is having access at all times to the diary of the high representative. What makes the hon. Gentleman's point even more synthetic is the nature of the official policy of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition this time last year. Notwithstanding an EU-wide ban on anybody talking to Hamas, we were asked by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), their official spokesman on foreign policy at the time, to do so. Not once has that been repudiated by their Front Bench spokesmen.
	There are many examples of the way in which we work better together on the agenda of the European Council. For example, the Council will discuss progress on the EU action plan on terrorism agreed last March, and it is expected to agree a new EU drugs strategy for the next seven years. Drugs and terrorism are self-evidently threats that cross national borders. We cannot just wait until they arrive at Doverwe have to tackle them by working together with our neighbours. Then there is the issue of economic reform. We have a clear interest in promoting stronger growth and greater flexibility in Europe, our most important market. British companies have benefited greatly from European liberalisation, and will gain further from reform in future. We are winning the arguments. The new President of the European Commission, Jos Manuel Barroso, and his team have already set out a strong commitment to promoting economic reform, including making better regulation a top priority. The Commission has just announced that it is withdrawing 100 pieces of pending legislation, and the EU has agreed the UK's proposal for competitiveness-testing of new regulations.
	The six presidencies initiative on better regulation announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the ECOFIN meeting on 7 December gives us a clear strategy for making further progress. We will continue to work closely with British industry and the new Commission team on this agenda in the coming months.

Several hon. Members: rose

Jack Straw: I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), then the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson).

John Bercow: And then me.

Gisela Stuart: As the Foreign Secretary is talking about removing regulations, would he consider the notion that any proposal from the Commission should have a time limit on it? Unless agreement is reached within a set time it should be withdrawn, because other legislatures operate within limits set by, for example, the Queen's Speech or a general election. That would help to prevent proposals from dragging on endlessly.

Jack Straw: I shall certainly look at my hon. Friend's suggestion, as it is a constructive idea. [Interruption.] I would do the same for any hon. Member. However, while her proposal has many advantages it also has some disadvantages. We may wish a certain regulation, such as one on further liberalisation, to complete its passage, but it could effectively be vetoed and qualified majority voting overridden by simple delay. We must therefore work out a balance.

Angus Robertson: In addition to the agenda items that the Foreign Secretary has discussed, does he agree that further enlargement of the EU is important? Is he aware that within the past hour the European Parliament voted by 407 votes to 262 in favour of Turkish accession which, I am sure, he welcomes? Does he agree that it is important for the Turkish Government to continue to address democratic standards, human rights safeguards and the treatment of minorities, especially the Kurds?

Jack Straw: I was not aware of that vote and I am grateful, as I am sure the House is, to the hon. Gentleman for giving us that information. I shall come to Turkey later, but I welcome that vote. I have not seen the text of the motion, but I hope that it is an unconditional vote in favour. We hope that Turkey's membership negotiations will be agreed on Friday.
	Now, in the words of the late Ernest Bevin, I will give way to 'im.

John Bercow: Under the terms of the acquis communautaire, we do not have independence in trade policy, which underlines the importance of working together effectively within the European Union. Given that rape as a weapon of war, compulsory relocation, forced labour, the use of child soldiers and human mine-sweepers and the bestial destruction of villages are part of the cocktail of barbarity visited on the people of Burma every day, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is now incumbent on the EU to step up its act on sanctions against Burma? It should not concentrate action against the pineapple juice sector in that country, but instead develop targeted sanctions on oil, gas, telecommunications, timber and gems to hasten the day when the people of Burma have the freedom that we have long enjoyed and that they have been too long denied.

Jack Straw: I applaud the hon. Gentleman, both for his interest in Burma and for his very strong feelings, which are shared across the House. The sanctions on Burma that we secured a few months ago were not as strong as we would wish, but they are much stronger than anything that the UK could have achieved by working alone without a common position. Different EU countries have different perspectives, and a price must be paid for the position that the Conservatives, like us, have taken, as our work in the EU is based on unanimity. We can only proceed at the pace of the slowest. Every member nation attending meetings of Foreign Ministers has a veto, so it was hard work to reach our position. One member state in particularnot the UKhad strong vested commercial interests in Burma, but we will continue to work on the problem.

Lembit �pik: The Foreign Secretary has discussed economic development. Is he aware of the enormous benefit experienced by the Estonian Government following the recent visit of its Prime Minister to the United Kingdom? Such exchanges are important in helping new countries such as Estonia to have a sensible voice and a strategic outlook on the very matters that he has discussed.

Jack Straw: Indeed. I was delighted to entertain His Excellency the Prime Minister of Estonia when he came here. One of the subjects of conversation at lunch was the fact that we have a Member of Parliament of Estonian extraction who speaks good Queen's English and represents a Welsh constituency. It is refreshing to have the 10 new EU members in the room, because the further east they are the further west they tend to look. EU enlargement has long been an objective of successive British Governments, and rightly so.
	Europe, and with it Britain, suffered in the last century from the two most destructive wars in human history and, until the mid-1970s, half of Europe's countries were dictatorships of one kind or another. But the fact that peace and democracy have now spread across the continent is, to a significant degree, thanks to the role that the European Union has played.
	Since its foundation, the EU has helped to turn formerly bitter enemies into the closest of partners. It has brought divided communities closer together, as it did with Britain and Ireland when we joined in the 1970s. As Spain, Portugal and Greece threw off one-party rule and began to entrench democratic institutions during the 1970s, the prospect of EU membership acted as a powerful motor for change. In the 1990s, as the countries of eastern Europe, including the Baltic states, emerged from the shadow of communism, the EU again drove a similar process. The goal of EU membership gave those countries a powerful incentive for both political and economic reform, as they opened their economies to trade and implemented EU laws and standards in areas such as environmental protection.
	The European Council this week will be asked to endorse the conclusion of EU membership negotiations with two more countriesRomania and Bulgariawith a joint accession treaty to be signed early next year, putting them on track to join the EU in January 2007. EU leaders will also discuss whether to set a date for opening membership negotiations with Croatiaa goal that the UK supports, although we also want Croatia to improve its co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague.

George Foulkes: Does my right hon. Friend accept that until such time as these countries become members of the European Union, co-operation can still be achieved, to a limited degree, through the Council of Europe, which, thankfully, will have a summit meeting next year that I hope that he will attend? The Council of Europe is considering a convention on human trafficking, which is vital as such trafficking creates tremendous problems. Recently, I attended a meeting at the Council of Europe and we are concerned that the convention will not be strong enough. Will he examine the recommendations from its Parliamentary Assembly to see whether the convention can be strengthened?

Jack Straw: I am delighted to say to my right hon. Friend that, of course, I will do so.
	The issue of Turkey will dominate proceedings on Thursday and Friday

Menzies Campbell: The Foreign Secretary has been characteristically generous in giving way. Before he passes to what will obviously be the principal issue of Turkey, does he derive some encouragement from the recent presidential election in Romania, which suggests that the prospect of EU membership can have illuminating effectsif one likes to put it that wayon the attitude of candidate countries to tackling corruption?

Jack Straw: The answer to that is yes. It has been wondrous to behold the way in which the prospect of EU membership has forced such former east European statessome of which were not states at all, while the rest, even if they were states, had ramshackle political institutions that met no internationally agreed standardsto change and raise their standards. Others have played a part, including NATO, the Council of Europe and the United Nations, but the intensity of work required to become members of the EU has made the big difference.
	Turkey's European vocation has been recognised by the European Union since the association agreement with the EU in 1963. The prospect of EU membership, particularly over the last three years, has driven an impressive process of change in Turkey. Prime Minister Erdogan's AKP Government have pursued a thoroughgoing and courageous programme of reform that has brought Turkey much closer to Europe and Europe's values. To date, the AKP Government and their predecessor have introduced nine separate packages of legislative and constitutional reform. Those have included the abolition of the death penalty, measures to combat torture and improvements in minority rights such as the freedom to study, register names and broadcast in Kurdish. The military is now under civilian control, restrictions on freedom of expression have been removed and a policy of zero tolerance of torture has been introduced.
	The Turkish Government also did all that they could to promote a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem, as they were asked to do. That those efforts failed earlier this year is no fault of the present Turkish Government.

Keith Vaz: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Jack Straw: May I make some progress?
	Our embassy in Ankara has worked hard to support Turkey's efforts on Cyprus, on liberalisation of the economy, on human rightsincluding familiarising judges and prosecutors with the requirements of European lawon the development of women's rights, on the development of non-governmental organisations, on Kurdish issues and on religious freedom. That work is part of a strong British commitment to supporting Turkey's European ambitions.
	In its report and recommendation published on 6 October, the European Commission judged that Turkey now meets the EU's political criteria and is ready to open negotiations for membership. The British Government share that assessment. We therefore want agreement at the European Council to opening EU membership negotiations with Turkey next year.
	Those negotiations are bound to take some years, but Turkish membership of the EU would bring major benefits to Britain and to Europe as a whole. Turkey has long been a strong partner in NATO, occupying as it does a strategic position between the middle east, central Asia and the Balkans. The presence of a European Turkey in that crucial region would be of enormous further benefit. One half of Turkey's trade is already with the EU, most of it under the customs union which has been in force since 1996. EU membership for Turkey would increase that further. It offers the prospect of significant benefits for British firms, who are already Turkey's fifth most important suppliers of imports. Turkey's dynamic economy and society would be a valuable asset to the whole of Europe.
	Turkey's European destiny is also important for a wider reason: the signal that a European Turkey would send to people everywhere of Europe's commitment to diversity and truly universal values. We have heard a lot of talk over the past few years about a supposed clash of civilisations between the west and the Islamic world. The Government utterly reject that notion. First, it ignores how much the Muslim world and the so-called western world have shaped each other over the centuries and share a common cultural and historical heritage. Secondly, it supposes that Europe is an entirely secular place. In fact, manyif not mostEuropean countries, including this one, have a strong religious tradition intertwined with their secular society, some European countries, including England, have state Churches and, in many parts of continental Europe, there are Christian Democratic political parties. Thirdly and most importantly, that view of a clash of civilisations ignores the enormous contribution that people of the Muslim faithincluding the 25,000-plus in my constituencymake to Britain and to many other European countries today, and that they have made down the centuries. Britain and Europe today are more and more diverse, and we are richer for it.
	We are justifiably proud to celebrate that diversity. We recognise that the basic values of this country, and of Europe, apply to people of all faiths and backgrounds. A European Union including Turkey would send a strong signal of that. We want to see an economically successful, democratic Turkey, anchored in Europe, which would deal a heavy blow to those who stoke up mistrust and division. That could be an inspiration to many others in the Muslim world.
	I know that there is widespread agreement in all parts of the House that Turkey's destiny lies as a full member of the European Union, as that has the approbation of the Front-Bench teams. But I am also struck by a paradox. Something strange is happening in the Conservative party. It used to be a vocal supporter of EU enlargement. It would probably claim that it still is. But as proud, sovereign and independent nations such as Turkey queue up to join the European Union and as many othersHungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and the Baltic statessee their hard-won membership as affirmation of their freedom and their independence, the Conservative party has gone rather quiet. Perhaps it is because it is difficult for it to explain why a country such as Turkey, with its distinctive traditions and its commitment to being a strong and powerful nation, is so keen to join an organisation that the Conservatives now say represents, with the new constitution, the end of 1,000 years of national history. It is another example of Conservative myths coming face to face with reality, and as ever, the Conservative party losing out.

Michael Ancram: rose

Jack Straw: The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes will have his chance to respond.
	These are independent nation states, they know what is in the constitution and they are happy to join on that basis. As I pointed out, the fact that this European Council will take a decision on Turkey is just one of the items on the agenda that shows how this Government's policy of engagement in Europe is delivering results.
	We have built strong alliances with our partners on the question of the EU budget. We are using the influence of the EU's 25 nations to support democracy in Ukraine and the Palestinian territories. We are leading the push for economic reform in Europe and we are helping to bring more countries into the EU, expanding markets for British business, entrenching stability and freedom across the continent, and promoting in Europe the diversity that we celebrate at home.
	Let us be in no doubt that the advances we have made as a result of our engagement in the EU would be put at risk by a Conservative party that seeks isolation and exclusion from our European partners. Almost a decade ago, the right hon. and learned Member for Devizeswho now mocks the ideasupported the most crass and counter-productive policy of non-engagement in the EU. Appointments in the EU were vetoed and meetings boycotted. The result was an even greater loss of power in Europe than had existed previously, under the Major Government.
	Sadly, the Conservatives have learned nothing from that experience or from their increasing marginalisation in Europe today. Indeed, their policy of a fundamental renegotiation of Britain's existing treaties is an exaggerated form of the same approach. It is unworkable, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows only too well, and would be a disaster for Britain's national interests.
	In contrast, the Government are serving Britain's national interests by engaging in Europe and shaping an enlarged EU that is flexible, outward-looking and reformed. We will continue that approach at this week's Council meeting and beyond.

Michael Ancram: In the spirit of Christmas, I welcome the Foreign Secretary back to the Floor of the House. We genuinely missed him during the foreign affairs debate on the Queen's Speech. We fully understood why he could not be here, but I can only say that his absence was a disaster. The Secretary of State for Defence was reading from a brief that he clearly had not mastered and the Minister of State, winding up the debate, obviously believed that imitation was the sincerest form of flattery.
	Today we have been treated to our biannual dose of what I call the European Strawfestthat somewhat indigestible mixture of cautious Europeanism, garbled and deliberately obtuse detail and, of course, the inevitable anti-Tory rant. At least the Foreign Secretary mentioned Europe, but what a different Europe from the one that we discussed in similar debates two years ago. In those debates, all the Government's dogs were barking. Now they are much more muted: it is almost as if the Foreign Secretary has lost his enthusiasm for the great European project. Today, the only dog that really barked was that pathetic mangy old mongrel that seeks to base the terms of the debate on a false choice between signing up to the constitution and getting out. We have heard that over and over again. The Foreign Secretary knows it is false, yet he continues to employ it. I have always found that particular dog a somewhat welcoming mutt, as it nearly always signals that the Foreign Secretary has nothing positive to say about Europe. In the words of the former No. 10 adviser Derek Scott

Menzies Campbell: Not again.

Michael Ancram: Derek Scott said:
	the Government never saw the discussions on the constitution as an opportunity to stand back and think clearly about the appropriate political and economic framework to sustain the EU. There was no strategic thinking.
	The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) may say Not again, but I think that Derek Scott, given his experience of Downing street and what went on there, is a man to whom we should listen. If I may quote the Home Secretary's famous phrase, the Foreign Secretary has once again presided over a giant messand today, as he prepares to attend this weekend's Euro summit, he is once again in a mess.
	Let us leave aside the detail of the constitution for the moment. What has happened to it in practice? This time last year, it was so central to the Government's European policy that it could not even be put to a referendum of the British people. Last year, the Prime Minister described it as
	a gross and irresponsible betrayal of the British national interest.
	At about the same time, the Foreign Secretary told us that there was
	no case for a referendum.[Official Report, 11 June 2003; Vol.406, c.724.]
	As we now learn from the New Statesman, that was until the Minister for Europe, apparently, turned to the Foreign Secretary during a debate.
	I turned to Jack and said: 'Jack, we're'
	I cannot repeat the next word; I shall have to say expletive deleted. The Minister went on
	We've got to give a referendum. I don't think we can hold out.
	That was a welcome U-turn, but where is the constitution now? Where is the road show that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz)who is barracking from the Back Benchespromised us three years ago? I can only assume that it is an invisible road show.
	The ratification Bill is the only piece of Foreign Office legislation in the Queen's Speech. What has happened to it? During a little publicised meeting of the parliamentary Labour party on 29 November, the Foreign Secretary apparently told his colleagues that he hoped they would
	become actively involved in the debate on the European Referendum Bill which would shortly be coming before the House.
	He added, apparently without sarcasm, that
	this would provide a good opportunity to refresh
	to refresh!
	support for the EU amongst the British people.
	Where is this refreshing Bill? There will be no sign of it before Christmas. The Government Chief Whip is briefing that it will not be passed before the next general election. There are suggestions that it will not even be introduced before then. Who is right, the Foreign Secretary or the Chief Whipor is this just another Straw mess?
	The text for which we were told we would have to wait is now with us. The Foreign Secretary said that he wanted a document that he could put in his pocket. This is it. What are the Government frightened of? Could it be the fear that, before the election a full debate, far from being refreshing, would awaken the British people to the extent of the betrayal and sell-out of Britain that the constitution engenders? If the Government had the courage of their convictions, they would introduce that legislation now.

Jack Straw: rose

Michael Ancram: I normally give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but he firmly decided that he would not give way to me, so I will not give way to him now.
	Perhaps the constitution is becoming like the euro, which seven years ago was so important and central to our role in Europe that the Government lambasted my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) for seeking to rule it out not just for the last Parliament, but for this one. That period, mocked by the Government, is now almost complete, and there is still no referendum. Once again, it was all wordsbut now the words are changing. The other day, the Minister for Europe helpfully described the single currency as economically irrelevant and the Chancellor's five tests as
	a bit of a giant red herring.
	The Minister shakes his head, but I have the transcript. I will lend it to him to remind him of what he said.
	Now we know from the horse's mouth where the Government stand on the euro. I wonder how soon this wretched constitution will also become irrelevant and a bit of a giant red herring.
	A moment ago, I unfairly accused the Government of producing an invisible road show. I was unfair to the Minister for Europe, who has conducted a road show in at least one roadsomewhere in the vicinity of Durham university. The transcript reveals just what a road show that was. It makes great reading. Listen to this:
	I mean you want criticism of the European Union? Where do you want me to start? The common agricultural policy? I would like to get rid of it.
	Is that now Government policy? The Foreign Secretary need only shake his head or nod. If it is just the start of the Minister's criticism of the EU, I hope he will give us the rest this afternoon.

Denis MacShane: Is it Conservative party policy to maintain and defend the common agricultural policy?

Michael Ancram: We have made our position on the CAP very clear during the last few debates on it. The Government's position seems to be a complete departure from their former position.

Denis MacShane: rose

Michael Ancram: I will give way to the Minister later. He may want to comment on one or two other things that I shall say.

Angus Robertson: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman share my surprise that the Minister for Europe favours scrapping the common agricultural policy, but not the common fisheries policy? He is happy to see the CFP entrenched in the European constitution at a time when Socialist International colleaguesfrom Portugalare saying that it should not be in the constitution as an exclusive competence.

Michael Ancram: It is unusual for me to say this to a member of the Scottish National party, but that is a very interesting question, and I hope that the Minister for Europe will answer it when he winds up the debate. In fairness to him, however, I should point out that he described his decision to get rid of the CAP as a start. We do not know what other policies are being changed.

Denis MacShane: rose

Michael Ancram: I have devoted a little section of my speech to the Minister. When I have finished it, I shall be happy to give way to him.
	The Minister went on to talk about the treaty establishing the European constitution. He described it as not the last word. That has been our warning for some time, but until now we have not heard it from the Government.
	Next, I have an extraordinary quotation that I have been reading and rereading. I can only deliver it to the House verbatim and leave it hanging there. Perhaps the Minister will then explain what he meant. He said:
	I phoned up the King of Spain and said 'Buenos dias, your Majesty, I understand that a gentleman from Brussels is going to come round and measure up curtains in the Royal Palace'and he put the phone down because he doesn't talk to lunatics.

Denis MacShane: It is a question of how one says it.

Michael Ancram: I can assure those who think that I made up that quote that it is in the transcript. Perhaps one day the Minister for Europe will provide a translation of it.
	Fathoming the Foreign Secretary's position is not much easier. He exhibits schizophrenia on the question of a referendum. One moment he is aggressively against a referendum and the next he is passionately in favour. That is surely not just because the Minister for Europe, as we heard, swore at him. This is the same Foreign Secretary who blithely assured the House in the autumn of 2003 that EU enlargement would not create undue or unsupportable migration to the UK from the accession countries. He will remember the debate in question.
	We now learn from Stephen Pollard's new biography that, according to the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary flew into an hysterical panic over migration when the EU was enlarged. I am very grateful to the Government Chief Whip. She kindly handed back the copy of the biography that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition tried to give to the Prime Minister as a Christmas present, so that I could better use it, having been unable to get a copy myself. I have had a moment or two to glance at it and it is worth reading the following quote into the record. It says:
	'Jack Straw and the Foreign Office just completely flipped on the position they had held before. Jack went into hysterical mode about what he now saw as the impending consequences of accession. He started making dramatic predictions of what would happencompletely the opposite of what he had wanted about five minutes earlier.' For months, Straw had been 'the man who said everybody was welcome to come and draw benefits', as Blunkett puts it. Come the moment of accession, however, Straw 'suddenly decides he's in a terrible panic and he doesn't want anybody here at all. And so we're going round in circles.'

Tony Baldry: Does that not illustrate why having just two days a year to debate European policy is wholly inadequate? Every so often, we ought to have the opportunity to debate European trade policy and migration policy, because only then will we be able to flush out of the Foreign Secretary what the Government's policy is. His coming here just twice a year and speaking for the whole Government in what amounts to a group therapy session is pathetic and inadequate.

Michael Ancram: I agree. Indeed, my point is that this issue relates to two Departments that the Foreign Secretary has led. We now learn that he gave to this House an account that differs totally from the actual truth. This is another fine mess.

Keith Vaz: The shadow Foreign Secretary has been speaking for 11 minutes, but he has raised none of the issues that will be before the European Council at this weekend's meeting. This is our only opportunity to debate these important matters before that meeting. Will he get on and put forward the Conservative party's agenda, rather than relying on tittle-tattle?

Michael Ancram: I will make my own speech in my own manner, just as the hon. Gentleman will doubtless do.
	A far more important question is, what is the Government's position on Europe today? For all the Prime Minister's talk about being at the centre of Europe, the Government have never really had a policy on Europe, except to adopt the course of least resistance. They are always the poodle, never the bulldog, hence last year's surrender over the separate European military planning capabilitythere can be no other explanationand the current apparent readiness to go along with the EU's proposed lifting of the embargo on arms sales to China, in the full knowledge that it will cause a deep breach with the United States. In terms of military equipment, that could be very damaging to our national interest.
	The Foreign Secretary tried to make light of this issue yesterday by suggesting that the embargo has no legal force, but that we now have a legally enforceable EU code of conduct. That seems strange, given Amnesty International's criticism of that code of conduct as not legally binding. The EU embargo, however, applies as a Council decision. If the Foreign Secretary is right, why is Chinabacked by French commercial interestsso keen for the embargo to be lifted, and the US so adamantly opposed?
	Two months ago, the Prime Minister signed the treaty establishing a European constitution, even though it contains many elements that he had assured us would not be in it. First, there is the constitution itself, which he told us in October 2000 was not necessary. Secondly, reference is made to EU control of justice and home affairs, matters which we were told would be dealt with through co-operation between nation states. Thirdly, the EU is given a single legal personality, a proposal which the Prime Minister once described as potentially damaging. Fourthly, reference is made to a legally binding charter of fundamental rights, even though we were promised that such a charter would not be legally binding and would have no more legal force than the Beano. Fifthly, the promised vetoes in respect of social security and criminal law have been watered down into so-called emergency brakes. The Government's firm opposition to a European public prosecutor has been overruled by the constitution and control over our asylum and immigration has at best been compromised, at worst surrendered. And what about the 248 other amendments that the Government tabled, but which were rejected?
	Why did the Prime Minister sign up to a constitution that flies in the face of his Government's promises? As I have said, the answer is that this Government have no policy on Europe other than to adopt the course of least resistance. Still they tell us that this constitution is nothing more than a rule book to run the enlarged EU. What sort of mugs do they take the British people for? That is not what the EU is telling the wider world. When in Israel last week, I asked a senior Minister about his views on the EU's relationship with the peace process. He said that the EU was being very pushy about playing the lead role and that EU representatives were now telling him that Europe was more powerful and influential than the US. They said that it had more people and that, under the constitution, it would soon have its own president, foreign minister and diplomatic service, complete with ambassadors. They also said that it would have its own foreign policy and currency, and eventually its own military forcesand the clout, therefore, to deliver in the middle east.
	Once again, we see the use of the forked tongue. The Government are minimalists at home to allay public suspicions, but enthusiastic integrators abroad. That is not a clear picture; it is more of a tangled web. By way of contrast

Andrew Miller: Does the shadow Foreign Secretary not think that the EU has an important role to play in resolving the Palestine-Israel issue?

Michael Ancram: Of course I do, but as I shall discuss later, we should play that role alongside the United States, not in competition with it. That is the lesson that Europe has to learn.
	In contrast with the Government, we have a clear view of Europe and of the EU. We are in Europe, and we are determined that Britain should be a positive and influential member of the EU. We are looking for a more flexible, less bossy Europe, in which the strengths and wishes of individual nations count. We believe that to achieve that, Europe must change. We oppose the constitution in principle because we believe it is a gateway to a country called Europe to which we do not want to go. We also oppose it in detail, because it erodes our essential rights in respect of self-determination. I have been through the list of those erosionsthe trappings of European statehoodmany times, so I need not do so again today.
	I will, however, allude to a new erosion of our rights. The accusation has been made that the constitution will make the already serious problem of EU fraud even worse. Let me quote whistle blower Marta Andreasen, who certainly knows the workings of the EU institutions backwards. Last week, she pointed out that those institutions needed reform, rather than more powers. She charged that the constitution would create a dangerous system of shared control that is equivalent to no control. She said:
	my experience from the inside allows me to say that we are at great risk if we vote for a Constitution that increases the powers of institutions which have proved up until now to be totally unaccountable and lacking in transparency. If we let go this opportunity to express our dissent there will not be another opportunity again.
	We should listen to her.
	We will therefore campaign to defeat this constitution in the referendum, when it comes. With us in government, it will come by next September, and I believe that the British people will have the good sense to vote no. That will, in turn, open the door to the building of a new Europe that works for its peoples, not its elites. We will reverse the conveyor belt that for too long has transferred powers only one wayfrom national Parliaments to Brussels. It is clear that the EU has powers in respect of matters that would be better dealt with by member states, and we are not alone in thinking this. As Commissioner Margot Wallstrm said,
	in the European Commission we must accept that more power is moved back to the member states.
	The Dutch Foreign Minister Bernard Bot said that
	the EU needs to practise self-restraint. It should look expressly at those parts of common policy for which member states could take responsibility again.
	The Minister for Europe will be delighted to know that included in that list of parts were aspects of the common agricultural policy.

William Cash: My right hon. and learned Friend is setting out a healthy catalogue of concerns about the direction in which Europe has been going, but does he also accept that it is extremely important to have regard to the political structure of Europe and the manner in which the integration process has been developed under existing treaties? We should approach that not in an individual or isolated manner, but by reference to a proper and radical renegotiation of all the treaties, so that we could then live comfortably with whatever emerges.

Michael Ancram: We want to see a reformed Europe and I do not believe that that can be achieved in one go. What we must do is set the process in motion and reverse the conveyer belt. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have comprehensively failed to do so. As Derek Scott said:
	It should have been on the agenda of the Convention for the Future of Europe. If it was not, it was because the Government was too gutless to put it there.
	Those were his words, not mine. We would negotiate to restore local and national control over our fisheries. As the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), who is no longer in his place, pointed out, the common fisheries policy has been a disaster, while nationally managed fisheries off Norway and Iceland have been a success.
	We would also restore Britain's opt-out from the social chapter, which has allowed costly regulations to be imposed on Britain. In the light of the shocking examples of fraud in the EU overseas aid budget uncovered by OLAF in its latest report, it makes sense for more of our overseas aid budget to be spent from London and less of it from Brussels.
	The Government scathingly deride the notion that it is possible to negotiate to bring powers back from Brussels to Britain. The Prime Minister told my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition that
	no one will support his attempt to renegotiate the conditions.[Official Report, 20 April 2004; Vol. 420, c.161.]
	The Minister for Europe takes a differentand, I have to say, on this occasiona more realistic view. [Interruption.] I am about to cite the wise words of the Minister for Europe, so he should listen. What I call negotiation, he calls networking. He spoke about convincing the Irish, Austrians, Spanish and Italians that there is a better way forward. I call that constructive negotiation. He believes that he can get rid of the common agricultural policy that way. Add a little grim determination to secure our objectives, and I do not believe that we are that far apart on our ability to renegotiate sensible decisions within the EU. Let us hear no more defeatist talk about the EU being unamendable and unchangeable.
	Different European countries want different things from the European Union. The British people want free trade and a structure to help us work together with our European partners to tackle common problems such as the environment and international crime. Others want a full-blown political union and a federal state. There can be only one answer to those divided positionsa flexible Europe. We should let those countries that want to integrate further do so, but other countries should not be compelled to join them. Outside the core area of the single market, they should be allowed to reclaim powers from the EU where the EU is performing badly.

Chris Bryant: If all the other 24 countries decide that one of the things that they want is a constitution as expressed in the constitutional treaty, what will the right hon. and learned Gentleman then do?

Michael Ancram: The hon. Gentleman knows the rules of intergovernmental conferences. If there is one veto, the treaty dies. That has been made clear on both sides of the House and has been accepted by those responsible in the Convention for producing the constitution.
	The need for a flexible Europe has never been greater. As the Foreign Secretary said, enlargement has not reached its limits and I am delighted that there is cross-party support in this country for negotiations to begin for Turkey's membership. Ukraine, too, is showing a European vocation, but an EU of 30 or more countries would be unworkable under the current tight structure and would be worse still if the constitution came into force.
	The Foreign Secretary chided me for wanting to see Turkey open negotiations while saying at the same time that we should vote against the constitution. May I remind him that the constitution's designer, Giscard d'Estaing, said:
	the European constitution currently submitted for ratification was not conceived to welcome in a national power the size of Turkey.?
	On this occasion, Giscard d'Estaing and I are as one. We believe that if we are to have an enlarged Europe, we need a different constitution.
	We have seen two rather different elections in Romania and Ukraine. I congratulate the new President of Romania and I would like to see Romania in the European Union, but first the Government must show that they have dealt with current concerns about the integrity of the political process and the judicial process, and with corruption elsewhere in Romanian society. We salute the Ukrainian people for their defence of, and enthusiasm for, democracy. We very much hope that the elections on Boxing day are free of fraud. Ukraine will always have a special relationship with Russia, but equally it has a right to look to join the European Union.
	Deregulation is another key feature of the Europe that we want to see. The failure of the Lisbon agenda is a matter for regret. The EU is burdened with far too many regulations and we need systematically to reverse the drivers of regulation.
	The European Union has achieved much that is good. It has effected a lasting reconciliation between countries that were once bitter enemies. It has nurtured young democracies. It has been the lure for countries emerging from dictatorship to uphold the rule of law. It has created wealth by opening up European markets. It has done all those as a partnership of sovereign nation states. That is what we must now build on. The antithesis of that would be to follow those who seek to create a superpower to act as a counterweight or rival to the United Statesand that we must resist. It is a vain vision that would make a dangerous world even more dangerous.
	As we approach the EU summit this weekend, there is a choice of approachto stand up for British interests or to continue to be Europe's poodle. The Government have pursued the latter path for too long. Within Europe, it is time to make our true voice heard again.

Menzies Campbell: I cannot begin without expressing my profound disappointment that the Government have neither published nor introduced to Parliament the Bill designed to facilitate the ratification of the treaty, establishing a single constitutional document for Europe. It has been reported that the Government Chief Whip believes that it would be difficult to put such a Bill on the statute book before the election. If that report is true, it conveys two pieces of information: first, that the likely date of the election is almost certainly 5 Mayprobably the worst kept political secret in Westminsterand secondly, the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Government to put such a measure through Parliament.
	I find that particularly disappointing, as I had been looking forward to campaigning with the Foreign Secretary. I could see him, myself and perhaps the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) going to mass meetings of the British people, strenuously arguing the case for endorsing the constitution. It now appears from what the Minister for Europe has told the people of Durham that I was responsible for persuading the Foreign Secretary of the virtues of the referendum, so I count it as a personal failure that I have not been able to persuade him of the virtues of early legislation on this matter.
	Enlargement will undoubtedly be a significant issue for discussion this weekend. Not much reference has been made to Bulgaria, but I understand that that country has now pretty well closed all her chapters and will, in that sense, be eligible for membership. I hope that that membership proceeds smoothly and expeditiously.
	In the matter of Romania, to which some reference has been made, the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) was right that considerable doubts remain about corruption, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, but we are entitled to derive some encouragement from the election of Mr. Basescu, who was elected expressly on an anti-corruption ticket. As the Foreign Secretary was willing to agree a few moments ago, that is a clear indication of how the prospect of European Union membershipand, indeed, its requirementsmay have considerable influence on electorates, who are aware that without substantial change and their support for suitable political candidates, their aspirations for membership may not be able to be realised.
	It is inevitable that the principal focus will be on Turkey. One national newspaper this week rather portentously said that Turkey's moment has arrived. The admission of Turkey will be a strategic decision of historic importance. The Foreign Secretary himself spoke of Turkey forming a bridge between Islam and the west. There is reason to believe that Turkey's ultimate entry may not be for some years10 years in some estimates. In the meantime, there is an opportunity for inward investment and modernisation to take place. Just as the whole House supports Turkey's accession to the EU in principle, so it will also support the view that Turkey must implement all necessary reforms in full. There is a sense in which Turkey and the Turks must prove themselves, but it is important that they do so according to the same conditions as apply to everyone else, and that the bar is not set higher for Turkey than for any other applicant country.

Keith Vaz: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is not a question merely of the European Council agreeing that negotiations should start? A recent opinion poll in France reported that 70 per cent. of people there were against Turkey's membership. Does he welcome President Chirac's decision to go on television tonight to argue Turkey's case and to say that EU member states have a responsibility to sell Turkey's membership directly to their people, rather than waiting until the end of the negotiations?

Menzies Campbell: Indeed, and opinion polls suggest that persuading public opinion in France or Germany, for example, will be something of a task. It is to be welcomed that President Chirac will go on television this evening to make the case that the hon. Gentleman has outlined, but the notion that privileged partnership can be an alternative to membership needs to be killed now. One commentator this week said that it was of dubious legality and transparent bad faith.
	Passing legislation, as the Turkish Parliament has done, is one thing, but changing attitudes is quite different. We must bear it in mind that showing anything less than enthusiasm for Turkey's candidature, and instead offering something equivalent to a rebuff, could cause the progress being made in Turkey to be stalled or even reversed.

William Cash: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman seen the opinion poll that came out about two weeks ago which showed that 58 per cent. of all people in the UKand 68 per cent. of people aged between 18 and 24, and 65 per cent. of people in Scotlandwanted the existing European treaties to be reduced to trade and association agreements? Does he agree that adopting that as a policywhich I would certainly advocatewould also help in the context of Turkey? It would demonstrate that we could work together without giving way to the primacy of the European constitution.

Menzies Campbell: I did not see that poll, but if it is as pessimistic about Scotland as the hon. Gentleman suggests, it fills me with a certain anxiety. However, I have never regarded the EUor the Coal and Steel Community, or the European Community that developed from thatas being solely about trade. I consider it to be about the rule of law and human rights as well. The hon. Gentleman's question seems to imply that the arrangements between the European countries should be modified to provide only for trade and economic co-operation. Were that to happen, I believe that we would be giving up something that I consider to be of enormous importance and significance.
	That is how it was regarded in the immediate post-war period, when the impetus to find mechanisms to ensure that France and Germany were not at each other's throatsas they had been three times in the preceding 80 yearswas at its highest. I should be very reluctant to see an association emerge that was more akin to the European Free Trade Area, for example, in which the fundamental issues of human rights and the rule of law were put to one side. That might help a lot of countries to join the EU, but I am not sure that it would necessarily be in the UK's interest.
	The opening of accession negotiations with Turkey is the surest way to maintain the momentum already evident in that country towards reform, securing respect for freedom and human rights and promoting a stable and prosperous future. However, those objectives must be achieved in substance and not merely in form. That is why accession provides Turkey with a great opportunity and also a considerable obligation. Persuading public opinion in the EU and Turkey of the merits of Turkish accession remains a considerable task.
	I turn now to the question of the EU budget. It is inevitable when budget considerations are under discussion that there should be a very sharp focus on the UK rebateor abatement, as it is more properly described. I have no doubt that the view that it continues to be justified remains correct. Even with the abatement, between 1995 and 2002 the UK paid into the EU two and a half times more than either France or Italy.
	The European Commission appears to have some general proposals for a rebate mechanism applicable to all net contributors. So far, there is not sufficient detail about the proposals to make clear exactly how they will work, and what the consequences would be for the UK. Important, significant and justified though the abatement may be, however, the long-term question must concern the level of Britain's net contribution. If a more acceptable and sensible method of financing that had the effect of reducing in the long term Britain's net contribution could be achieved, then I shall continue the animal metaphors that have characterised today's debate by saying that it would be a rather dog-in-the-manger attitude not to include the abatement in the discussion. The abatement is significant more for its consequence than for any intrinsic merit.

Kelvin Hopkins: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the problem is the CAP, without which there would be no budget problem? Is it not right for Britain to make a net contribution to the EU budget so that poorer states and new members can benefit?

Menzies Campbell: In general, I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that.
	In addition, I should need a great deal of persuading before I could accept the Commission's proposals for substantial increases in EU funding. There are continuing allegations of corruption, and the auditors have still not signed off the accounts. As a result, this is no time to ask for more money and to do so would display a certain amount of insensitivity in political terms. In that regard, I support the British's Government's position, which is buttressed by France, Germany, Sweden, Holland and, I understand, Austria. The aim is to stabilise current expenditure and to limit the budget to 1 per cent. of gross national income. Given the present rate of current economic growth in the EU, increased spending at this time would be both unwise and even unsustainable.
	On the CAP, the priority for budget savings must not be the abandonment or destruction of the CAP. People who believe that it can be simply wished away or destroyed have a rather optimistic view of such matters. What is essential is reform. The CAP's failings are self-evident. They include excessive production, unsustainable farming practices, the penalising of both taxpayers and consumers, and an impact on the developing world that we may sometimes forget in our discussions but which matters a great deal when it comes to issues of universal free trade. No doubt that is an issue to which the newly appointed British Commissioner will give his considerable attention.
	Moreover, implementation of the reforms to meet the Lisbon targets has been very slow. Growth in the EU is slow and intermittent, and that is of some concern. Unemployment in France, Germany and Italy is now on the order of 10 per cent. That is a clear indication of the need for economic reform.
	Another issue is the dependency ratiothe ratio of non-workers to workerswhich is rapidly increasing in the EU. We have an ageing society with a high proportion of non-workers. Coupled with low growth and high public spending, that will inevitably be unsustainable in the long term.

Tony Baldry: Does not that also emphasise the need for Europe to remain competitive, especially with China? If European competitiveness does not keep up, we will fall further and further behind the new emerging economies.

Menzies Campbell: The fact that we are in the EU does not immunise us from the consequences of globalisation. The hon. Gentleman and I are at one on that point.
	It is clear that a large part of the discussions this weekend will concern external relations. Before I address the situations in Iran, Ukraine and the middle east, I wonder whether hon. Members shared my distaste at the reports that the telephone conversations of Dr. el-Baradei may have been the subject of electronic eavesdropping by our American friends? We have had reports in the past of the telephone conversations of the Secretary-General of the United Nations being subject to the same intrusion, and it seems to me that the confidence that we are entitled to have in international institutionsboth the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nationsis not served by such actions.
	We should welcome the agreement, to which the Foreign Secretary was party, by which Iran has undertaken to suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities. But it is also clear, as the Foreign Secretary will acknowledge, that some long-term agreement is required to cover not only nuclear matters, but economic, security and technical issues. The overwhelming priority must be to achieve a permanent end to uranium enrichment and the production of plutonium. Those are legitimate under the non-proliferation treaty as part of a civil energy programme, butas everyone knowsit is a short step from that level of expertise to the production of nuclear weapons. There is much to be said for the view that Iran has come close to mastering nuclear technology. That is of consequence not just in the context of Europe.
	Hon. Members will be aware that next year we are to have another review of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. If those with long memories cast their mind back to 2000, they will recall that success was achieved at the review conference only by virtue of the declared nuclear powers entering a separate agreement committing themselves to nuclear disarmament and to practical steps to achieve and implement it. At the NPT conference next year, the declared nuclear powers may be asked to account for their obligations under that agreement. No doubt the EU will have a view on the conference, but I suspect that it will be a difficult occasion, with several countries being forceful about what they regard as the obligations undertaken by the declared powers and the extent to which they have been implemented.

Jack Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman raises an important issue. However, our record in meeting the obligations of the 2000 review, as a nuclear weapons power, is better than any of the other nuclear weapons states.

Menzies Campbell: Before the Government came to power, I was one of those who supported the reduction in warheads on the Trident system. The Government implemented that quickly and got rid of the freefall bombsthe WE177sand several other systems. In that regard, the Government have acted properly, but I am not sure that that will be enough to satisfy many of those who attend the NPT review conference.
	If there is to be some long-term agreement with Iran, it should of course cover more than nuclear or security issues. Other issues for discussion and, one hopes, agreement include trade and investment, independence and impartiality of the police and judiciary, freedom of expression and the discriminatory treatment of religious minorities.
	The EU response to the situation in Ukraine has been both well judged and effective and we should take some pride in and confidence from that. The Foreign Secretary will be aware that reports this week suggested that a member of the Commission said no unequivocally to the notion of membership of the EU for Ukraine. The Prime Minister of Luxembourg recently said something similar. In the same reports, it was said that the UK Government were non-committal.
	I do not disguise the fact that Ukrainian membership would present difficulties. The Ukrainian economy, for example, is by no means compatible with that of the European Union. The gross domestic product per capita in 2003 was 2,800. In the EU in the same period, the average was 14,900a substantial disparity. Then there are the problems of governance in Ukraine, which recent events have thrown into sharp relief, and the historical relationship with Russia, which the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes mentioned. However, it appears to me that something is going on in eastern Europe, especially in Romania and in Ukraine. It might not be as dramatic as events in 1989, when the Berlin wall came down, with all the consequences that followed. I have the sense that some movement is taking place in countries that previously were thought to be impervious to arguments about the rule of law, an independent judiciary and control of the military. If that is so, we have an overwhelming responsibilityand it would be in our intereststo be responsive to such movement. That is why we should never say never about Ukrainian membership. We should be willing to say that there may be circumstances in which Ukraine's membership becomes both feasible and desirable. The Government have not said anything on the record about that, but I hope that some consideration will be given to it. In particular, the Government should ensure that no communiqu is issued this weekend that appears to bar for ever any application by Ukraine.
	I am in no doubt that in the circumstances presented after the death of President Arafat collective engagement by the EU in the situation in the middle east is essential. Weby which I mean the EUhave, after all, been the largest supporter financially of the Palestinian National Authority, although much of what has been built with the money that we have supplied has been destroyed. Interesting questions arise as to who should be responsible for its replacement. Everything must be done to facilitate the Palestinian elections, which appear to be proceeding remarkably smoothly so far.
	I do not believe that a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza will be any substitute for a comprehensive settlement that does not take account of the right of return, the status of Jerusalem and, perhaps most significantly, the settlements on the west bank. The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes said that the EU should not compete with the US, and he is right. He was right to say that we need a joint approach, but the evidence on which he sought to rely to suggest that some kind of competition is taking place could fairly be described as hearsay evidence, not evidence that one would wish to stand in the way of a joint approach. The EU may be very persuasive, but no one will be more persuasive in Israel than the US. If we are still talking about a two-state solutionas we must doit will require the full effort of the whole Quartet. Most certainly, the European Union should in no sense be competing with the United States.
	I shall finish with a few words about the constitution. My view may be unique, but I think that the constitution is neither the glorious victory that the Government claim nor the shattering defeat that the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes claimed. The constitution is a sensible balanceit enshrines properly, once and for all, in one document rather than several, the relationships that are at the heart of the European Union. In the course of this weekend, I doubt that the constitution will come under much discussion. In the UK, discussion about Europe may never be brought to a conclusion, but it will certainly not be brought to a proper state of consideration unless and until we have the opportunity provided by the referendum to which the Government are committed. The sooner that day comes, the better.

Keith Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). He speaks with great authority on these issues and I disagree with little that he has said so far.
	I agree that it is important for the Government to continue campaigning on Europe, but do we not need a date for the referendum campaign? Ministers and Members would then be able to go out to the country to talk about Europe. In fact, it would be much better if we did that in advance of a referendum campaign, because the European project is such an integral part of our foreign policy that we should not need an artificial reason to start talking about it.
	I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for his work on enlargement. It is right that Britain has been the champion of enlargement over the last few years, starting with the Prime Minister's speech in Warsaw five years ago. It is also right that the Foreign Secretary should point out the importance of Turkey's membership of the EU, for all the reasons that he set out, and because once Turkey joinsas I hope it willEurope will never be the same again. Turkey will bring a new religion to Europe, through the Muslim faith, as well as different cultures. We should see that as a positive development in the history of Europe. We should take into consideration, too, what the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife has just said about Ukraine.
	Turkey's association with the European Union began in 1963 when it signed its first agreement with the EU, with the eventual promise that it would join at some stage. That is almost 41 years ago, so the forthcoming European Council will have historic connotationsat last, we shall be saying to Turkey, Let us begin the negotiation process.
	Of course, it is right that Turkey should meet all the criteria of every other country. It would be quite wrong if we changed the rules for Turkey or had a different standard from that for other countries. I hope that the go-ahead will proceed this weekend and that when the Prime Minister returns on Monday he will tell us that it has been achieved at last and that negotiations can begin. Whether the process lasts for five years, 10 years or more, I hope that Britain will be at the forefront in developing relations with Turkey and ensuring that not only our trade relations but our people-to-people relations improve.
	The comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) were interesting. It was Conservative policy to hold a referendum on enlargement, yet the Conservatives now claim to be fully supportive of the enlargement process. They argued in favour of a referendum on Nice, but if we had had such a referendum it is possible that enlargement would have been blocked. When the shadow Minister for Europe winds up the debate, I hope that he will reassure us that there is no question that a Conservative Front Bench will call for a referendum on the admission of Turkey to the EU when that eventually happens.
	As I said in my intervention, I am concerned about public opinion in countries such as France. The latest opinion polls suggest that 70 per cent. of people in France oppose the entry of Turkey, so I am glad that President Chirac will be appearing on national television in France tonight to argue the case for Turkey. It is extremely important that Governments begin to talk about the enlargement process at an early stage. We did so only at the last moment in respect of the enlargement of 1 May.
	It is important to note that, despite the hysteria surrounding the entry of Poland, the Czech Republic and the other eastern European countries, and the predictions of the Conservative party, the Daily Mail and its sister papers, a huge number of people have not entered the UK. In fact, enlargement has gone extremely well. The people who have come over have taken part in the registration scheme; they are contributing to our economy, although of course they send remittances to their countries of origin, and are strengthening it by their presence. We should welcome that. I think the same will happen when Turkey joinswhenever that is.
	I hope that the Government will fashion a policy on the freedom of movement of Turkish citizens at a very early stage. We do not want a repetition of what happened just before 1 May, when there was a slight change in the Government's position and registration was introduced. I argued very much against the need for registration and I think that view has proved correct. Let us get things right now. Let us tell the Turksas potential fellow partners on an equal basiswhat we plan to do about freedom of movement, so that nobody misunderstands our position.
	The enlargement of 1 May will not be a huge consideration this weekend, although no doubt progress will be noted when the 25 Heads of Government meet around the table. I hope that we can do more to build the new member countries into the existing structure of the EU. Recently, I looked at the number of European agencies and how many were sited in the various EU countries. Obviously, there are no European agencies in the new member states and no plans to hold European summit meetings in any of them because of the deal struck in Nice, which was, as I recall, undertaken to make the Belgians feel a little happier. That is why so many European Council meetings take place in Brussels. Now would be a good opportunity to move one of the agencies from the old 15 to the new 10. Perhaps one of them could be in Prague, Warsaw, Cracow or one of the other new EU countries. It is essential to show that the enlargement process did not end on 1 May. If those countries are to be full and true members of the EU, we should be willing to hold more summits in them and move more of the agencies to them. The new members would feel reassured by that.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes mentioned the Lisbon agenda, which will, I am sure, be discussed at the Council this weekend. He was wrong to say that the Lisbon agenda was a failure; it was not. The difference between what happened at Lisbon and at other EU summits was that for the first time economic reform was benchmarked. It was part of that process to review the Lisbon agenda after five years to see how well the European countries had done. In fact, the Kok report, published a few weeks ago, makes it clear that Britain has done well, as opposed to some other EU countries. We have not done as well as the Scandinavian countrieswe would expect to see Sweden, Finland and Denmark right at the top, partly due to their population sizebut the economic reform agenda that our country is pursuing was praised in the Kok report. The House will know that the 112 indices have been reduced to 14 core indices, but we are in the top tier in a number of cases. So it is wrong to say that we have not done well out of Lisbon. Of course we can do better, but the Kok report is very clear. I am sure that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), will have read that report. He will know that we have actually had a good report, but we need to do better.

Graham Brady: rose

William Cash: rose

Keith Vaz: I give way to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).

William Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Kok report was about Europe as a whole; it was not with regard to the United Kingdom? Does he also accept, as one who has studied the Kok report in detail, that there is no doubt that Mr. Kok did severely criticise the failures of the European Union within the eurozone? Does he further accept that the consequence of that is that the only reason why the United Kingdom is seen to be doing comparatively better is despite, not because of, its policies, for example, on economic and monetary union? In the past, Labour would have supported, and did support, our engagement with the exchange rate mechanism, which the Prime Minister constantly throws at us but actually was supported by the then Labour party in opposition, so we should point that out, too.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is rightwe have been an economic success in the United Kingdom because of the policies pursued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is right also to say that the Kok report does outline a number of serious criticisms. The point of having a report of this sort is that when we look at Lisbon, five years on, as we shall do in the spring Council next year under the Luxembourg presidency, we shall at least have the basis for ensuring that there are action plans. The hon. Gentleman will know, because he has read this report, that what is being suggested is that each member state produces an action plan between 2005 and 2006, so that when we get to the spring Council in 2006 each EU country will have an action plan detailing what they will do as a result of the Kok report.
	I am very pleased that only yesterday, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills appointed Will Hutton a member of the Kok team, to lead for us in conducting the gap analysis that is being sought to see why we have fallen short of the criteria that have been set out. A gap analysis in the area of learning and skills and education is very important. I know from my time as Minister for Europe that these reports are wonderful, summits are all wonderful, and everything is always such a success in the European Union, but as we have this detailed report we need to act on it, and yesterday a domestic Department has decided to become the first of our Departments of State to ask a personWill Hutton, an excellent choice as he served on the Kok committeeto produce a gap analysis so that we know where we are going wrong. I want to see other domestic Departments doing the same thing. The predictions of the hon. Member for Stone would be correct if a similar approach is not taken by the Department of Trade and Industry and other Departments that are affected by economic policy. So, we have to take those criticisms; we have to accept that we need to do better. The proposals put forward yesterday and the proposals that will emerge from Departments will be very valuable in ensuring that we get our action plan in place.
	I also want to raise an issue that I have raised at every one of these Adjournment debates that has been held before a European Council meetingI know that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), will take a note of this so that he can pass it on to the Minister for Europeand that issue is reform. On 25 February 2002, our Prime Minister, Mr. Aznar and Gerhard Schrder wrote a joint letter on reform to the then European President. The point that we raised then was that there were key areas that needed to be looked at, and I raise it again because I hope that we shall have some answers at the end of the debate. How many of those points mentioned in that letter of 25 February 2002 have actually been realised? How many boxes can we tick? When I last raised this, we did not have an answer, but I am giving notice because I hope that information will be passed to the Front Bench by the time of the winding-up speeches.
	There is no point in our taking brave leadership positions in Europe, as our Prime Minister has rightly done, if the rest of Europe does not follow. Our job is to ensure that if we set benchmarks, we know whether they have been realised, and I think that four years is long enough to have looked at this process. I have said before that the people of Britain will never learn to love the EU until the EU learns to love reform, and that means that we need to explain to the people of this country, on an ongoing basisnot just if, but when the referendum campaign is calledthe benefits of membership of the European Union. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) tried to do so during the process of formulating the European constitution, and, to give him his credit and his due, so did the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) when he sat with her on the Convention. They went out and tried to discuss these issues, and I have received many invitations to events all over the country where they have been speaking on them. That is exactly what we should be doing.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes, instead of knocking the EU all the time, should be supporting what Britain is doing. We know where he really stands on this issue. We know that he has to adopt a hard-line approach because he speaks for the Conservative party, but we know where his heart really lies on Europe. Unlike others in his party, he wants to stay in the European Union. I will not mislead people by saying that that is not what he wants to do. If that is what he believes, he should be spending his time supporting what Britain is doing, as we spent our time supporting what Government Ministers did before 1997.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend talks about people learning to love Europe. Is not the problem that people are supportive of Europe but they want a different Europe? They want a social democratic Europe with full employment and good welfare states and social equality, and all the things that the Labour party has traditionally stood for. That is what they are not getting from Europe and that is why they are so sceptical.

Keith Vaz: I know that I cannot convince my hon. Friend of the merits of the euro, and I do not know whether I can convince him of the merits of being in the European Union, but the fact is that the Lisbon agenda is not just about economic reform, it is also about all the other things that go with social policy. If we have failed to explain that to people it is our faultEurope can deliver these benefits, but we have not explained them to people in places like Luton, Leicester and Manchester, and that is our failure.

Gisela Stuart: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a real problem, because we can preach the Lisbon agenda and then we see such things as the latest merger and takeover directive, which goes totally counter to what the Lisbon agenda said we should be doing? We aspire to things, but we do the opposite. That is what makes it so difficult.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend is right. She has great knowledge of these issues, and my experience and her experience, having sat on the Convention, are similar. Before these initiatives take root in the European Commission, and in all those great directorates-general it has all over the place, they need to be discussed here in the House. I believe that the proposals made by the Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the House for proper scrutiny of European affairs, merging all those various Committees into a Committee that really has teeth, are the way forward. I believe that on European issues we should take the route that we took on the Convention, when my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston and the right hon. Member for Wells kept coming to the House to report back and seek our views. I believe that the idea of a second Chamber has gone nowI do not think that we shall get thatand that means that we must take a much greater role in ensuring that scrutiny takes place.
	I want to end by briefly talking about the EU presidency, which will come to us in July next year. We are already starting to work on the presidency agenda, and this European Council gives us the opportunity to take forward a number of themes. Obviously, the enlargement theme can be taken forward, as will the Lisbon agenda, but I hope that we can develop the theme of Europe being more than just the original countries that joined or the 15, because we are now a Europe of 25a Europe of many cultures. We should be proud of the differences in Europe and celebrate them, rather than seeking to find excuses about why Europe does not work.
	The Dutch have done extremely well in holding together this presidency. I recently visited Holland to look at the aftermath of what has been happening there. They have had some awful problemsnot just the assignation of political figures, but at least 17 mosques have been subject to arson attacks. They are going through their own identity crisis and they have held together the presidency so well. We should learn from what has happened in Holland this year and we should ensure that we push forward the idea of not just an economically prosperous Europe that is able to compete with the United States, producing the jobs that we have not had in the past 10 years, but in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), a socially responsible Europe that does not involve us in giving up one iota of our economic success.
	I wish the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary well in their negotiations this weekend. If the go-ahead is given to Turkey, Britain will have achieved yet another major success, but I hope that all the other points that I have mentioned will also be pursued because we need to change Europe for it to get better.

William Hague: In listening to the debate, I feel that I am now taking part in the affairs of a very distinguished but small dining club that meets every six months or so to discuss European affairs comprised of people who are Ministers for Europe, who have been Ministers for Europe or who aspire to be Ministers for Europe, among whom I certainly do not count myself. It is a very distinguished group, in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) asks pertinent questions and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) gives a tour d'horizon of world affairs, which he did very well, rightly pointing to reasons for optimism in the affairs of eastern Europe, particularly Romania and Ukraine.
	It is evidently the Foreign Secretary's job in that club is to assure us that there is no need for concern, that it is fairly much business as usual and that the European Council is coming up, at which the matters for discussion are enlargement of the EU, the treaty that is on the table and perhaps the defence of the British rebateall from the point of view of a Government who are more pro-European than the public as a whole. That could have been said more or less of any European Council during the past 10 years, under the last Government as well as under the current Government.
	One might easily get the impression if one had just nipped into the debate that nothing had really changed much in recent years. My concern is that that is not the true background to European affairs. Immense forces are at work in the world far beyond the boundaries of Europe, and in 10 or 20 years' time European Affairs debates in the House will be set against a much darker background than today. The loss of public confidence in the EU's institutions in this country is becoming greater with each month that goes by, and that will have a dramatic outcome in the months and years ahead.
	Of course, all that might, to some extent, come to a crunch in the coming referendum on the European constitution, which evidently will be held whoever wins the general election, although the Government seem most anxious, despite the fact that they think it is vital to the future of Europe, to ensure that the constitution and the preparations for its ratification are not debated in the House this side of the general election. Those who advocate a yes vote in the referendum will find their job dramatically harder than those who advocated one in 1975.
	The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife looked forward a few moments ago to being there with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and perhaps the Foreign Secretary, and they will paint themselves as the moderate and informed opinion of the nation, against the rather extremist forces that might try to persuade people to vote no. That was the successful approach of the pro-EU sidepro-EEC, as it then wasin 1975, but hon. Members of all points of view recognise that that will be much harder in the coming referendum.
	It will be a much harder referendum for the yes side to win for several reasons. First, those who are old enough to remember the 1975 referendum feel that they were misled at that time because they were not told of the political as well as the economic consequences that would follow from a yes vote. Secondly, those who are not old enough to remember 1975 have grown up in an entirely different world, in which they have benefited from many aspects of the EU.
	The framework for co-operation that it has created, the reinforcement of the rule of law and the encouragement of democracy in certain countries and making war unthinkable between most of the countries of Europe are all real achievements, on account of which I am not in favour of a withdrawal from the EU. I believe that we must strive to make our membership of the EU a success, but the idea of ever-closer political integration of countries' institutions and the EU now seems out of date. Ever-closer political integration is an idea whose obsolescence has already come for a younger generation, who are entirely different from the young people of the 1970s and have a different outlook on world affairs. Part of the reason is also economic. We need not belabour the point today about the differences in gross domestic product and employment growth they have been mentioned alreadybetween this country and many of the eurozone countries in recent years.
	So the debate has moved on, and a sure sign that it has moved on is the variation in the statements of the irrepressible Minister for Europe, who is grimacing because he does not want his remarks to be dragged out again. He is the Member of Parliament for my original home townRotherhamand he is such an endearing figure and his remarks are so wonderfully indiscreet at regular intervals and so marvellously inconvenient to his colleagues that we really hope that if the Home Secretary does not survive his current career crisis the Minister for Europe can be put into the Cabinet so that we have a source for what is going on there.
	The Minister for Europe's remarks are incredibly useful and incredibly revealing. He has declared that the euro is economically irrelevant. Indeed, he now says that it is a fetisha brave thing to say in the current circumstances. That is the same Minister who only last June at a breakfast meeting of the London chamber of commerce declared that if we joined the euro
	our trade with the eurozone could leap by 50 per cent . . . Our national wealth could rise by 9 per cent.
	and that it would produce
	cheaper goods and services for British consumers.
	That is now irrelevant, apparently. Whatever one might say about those assertions, they are debateable, but to say that an increase in our national wealth of 9 per cent. is irrelevant is quite remarkable. He now says that he tried to persuade Ministers to
	Stop going on about the euro.
	It was incredibly far-sighted of him to try to dissuade them from talking about a policy to which he was so wholeheartedly committeda foresight rarely granted to any hon. Member.
	What is actually going on? The Minister for Europe has not really changed his views; they are well established and well known in private and in public and in the House. What has changed is that that topicthe eurohas become unsaleable to the people of this country, and it has become unjustifiable on the basis of economics. One has only to look at how the eurozone struggles with inflation, which is gathering in some of the eurozone countries, whereas there is economic stagnation in othersthe first threat of stagflation, which we last saw in the 1970sto see how gravely the economic case has been weakened, and he knows that there is no longer any substantial body of opinion in British industry, finance or commerce in favour of joining the euro.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes referred to the roadshow that was going to be launched by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), which Members of all parties would join to rouse millions of people in this country into a frenzy of enthusiasm for joining the euro. We have not seen much of that roadshow in recent years.

Keith Vaz: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has corrected the record because the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said that there was no roadshow. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that we did have a roadshow. He had a roadshow, toowas he not on the back of a lorry trying to save the pound?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman did have a roadshow, but it went on a pretty short road and did not get round most of the country. Mine reached more parts of the country than his, albeit with no greater effect, I readily concede. The assessments of both the Prime Minister and I of the chances of Britain joining the euro at the time of the last election were wrong. I thought that there was a serious possibility that Britain would join the euro in this Parliament if the Labour party was re-elected, and I think that the Prime Minister did, too. Our assessments were both wrong, but that was why I talked about it during the last election and he did not. The opportunityif one can refer to it as suchhas now gone by, and I do not think that it will recur.
	The public's sentiment about European institutions and what has happened regarding the case for the euro are signs that greater forces are at work that will affect European affairs in the years to come. It is always instructive to talk to Chinese leaders. I have been in favour of listening to them ever since they turned up at the bicentenary of the French revolution. When one was asked whether the French revolution had been a good thing in the history of the world, he said, It is too early to tell. Chinese leaders are always good at putting things in perspective. I had the pleasure of meeting them when I was Leader of the Opposition, and when I talked to Jiang Zemin about education in England, he said, Ah, there are more people studying English in China than there are English people in England, which put things in perspective.
	It is now commonplace to observe what is happening in the Chinese and Indian economies and the importance of the economic change that that is bringing to the world. However, it is less commonplace to understand the speed and scale with which that is happening. Eurozone managers want 2 per cent. economic growth a year, but China has 9 per cent. growth a year. As many forecasters say, there is every prospect that in 20 years, both the Chinese and Indian economies will be larger than the European economy.
	Recent signs in the eurozone economy are not encouraging. The demographics of European countries are terrible. Again, that fact has become more widely understood, but the speed and scale of the change on the cards is less widely understood. Later this century, steep falls in the populations of Germany, Italy, Hungary and several other countries are in prospect. On top of the unfunded pensions and expensive welfare systems that many countries face, we do not know what such population trends will do to societies. We know that they will create more difficulties with pension funds and that businesses should sell zimmer frames rather than baby-care products, but we do not know what they will do to a society's optimism and ability to innovate. We do not know whether they will make a society more conservative and more or less prone to save.
	The long-term outlook is uncertain because of demographic and economic trends. The European Commission has forecast that within what we hope are our lifetimesa few decadesthe extent to which the European economy will make up the world economy will go down from 20 per cent. to 10 per cent., while that of the United States will continue to advance from 23 per cent. to 26 cent.
	Such figures are just statistics, but behind the statistics, as ever, there will be millions of human stories. The talent, capital and dynamic forces in the world will head east and west rather than spending time in the European Union. Many people in Europe will miss out on the activity, progress and pioneering in the world and they will not like it. The United States will look elsewhere for its economic and political alliesto countries such as Brazil, South Africa and Australia. There will be immense political, economic and social strains on the European Union and its citizens, with perhaps the greatest loss of influence, relative prosperity and future potential experienced by any group of countries in peacetime in the modern world.
	It is no exaggeration to say that that situation faces European countries over the next 20 years. One would think that it might be on the agenda of a European Council on top of the many routine matters that must be discussed because it is the main thing happening in the world. However, perhaps it is creeping on to the agenda. The report from Mr. Wim Kok has already been mentioned in the debate and it gives a similar message. It says:
	Europe has lost ground to both the US and Asia; its societies are under strain; and some ugly political forces are beginning to manifest themselves.
	He and his colleagues say:
	What is at risk in the medium to long run is nothing less than the sustainability of the society Europe has built, and to that extent, the viability of its civilisation.
	Those are strong words, but not excessively strong, given the evidence.
	What is the collective response of European Governments? It is largely paralysis. There is a monumental failure of leadership. Those Governments often fail to recognise the problems or to explain them to their people. The structure of the European Unionas it is now, and as it would be if the proposed constitution were ever ratifieddoes not make it sufficiently cohesive to respond to such a threat, and does not give its member states the freedom to respond to that on their own, so we have the worst of every world.

John Burnett: Unfortunately, the situation is not one of paralysis. The European Union produces policies that actively undermine our economy and people. It is hatching a policy that will undermine and destroy the trust industry in this country. What could be worse for our economy? Can no one understand that such initiatives are deeply destructive and that no one will vote for closer integration in such circumstancesit is inimical to us?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to correct me. I am glad that there are Liberal Democrats who are unlikely to vote for the European constitutionthat is something of a revelation in itself. He is right to correct me because the situation is not quite one of paralysis. Unfortunately, there are some detectable movements, and although they are pretty small given the scale of such world events, they are certainly not positive.
	There were supposed to be many more such movements rather than a situation approaching anything like paralysis. The Lisbon Council was held in 2000, and the Prime Minister came to the House I remember it well because I was opposite him at the timeto tell us that it marked a
	sea change in European economic thinking.
	He said that it was a fundamental reorientation and that it would bring
	concrete measures with clear deadlines.
	He said that it would lead to the adoption of
	urgent measures to make the European economy as a whole more competitive, flexible and dynamic.
	He said, with great flowing rhetoric, that it represented
	a turning point in Europe's approach to economic and social policy.
	He said that it meanthow about this in Europe?that we could
	seriously contemplate a return to full employment.[Official Report, 27 March 2000; Vol. 347, c. 2122.]
	All that was on the cards after the Lisbon Council five years ago, but what has happened since? Mr. Wim Kok's report examined what has happened, but he concluded that most of the things that should have been embarked upon after the summit have not been embarked upon. Although several have been adopted, such as the recently agreed merger directive, they represent only a small advance. The directive is not so much a concrete measure as a piece of mud. It retains co-determination within companies and means that if companies merge and more than one third of the work force are from Germany, the new company must adopt the German rules. That will not promote a market for corporate control in Europe that will discipline management and improve competitiveness. While the world changes, the EU is still concerned with an integrationist agenda that is reducing the confidence of the people of this country in most of its branchesgovernmental institutions, the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Court of Justice.

William Cash: My right hon. Friend is making an exceptionally interesting, articulate and intelligent speech. Will he acknowledge that many of the criticisms that he is citing are of course consequences of not the new European constitution, but the treaties? When he speaks of paralysis, does he agree that there is a paralysis not only in the thinking of Europe and the Government, but, I say with regret, among some of our colleagues because they are unable to appreciate that the only way to get round the problems that he is accurately defining is by addressing the existing treaties along the lines of the poll that I mentioned a little earlier.

William Hague: If I followed my hon. Friend all the way down that road, there would be paralysis in my speech, as well as in the European institutions. The poll that he mentioned is important, as it is in line with many other published polls, which show that young people in Britain are even more dissatisfied with the operation of European institutions than older people. That may seem counter-intuitive, but when one talks to young people around the country and looks at every survey, one realises that it is certainly the case. Among women under the age of 25 who were surveyed a few weeks ago, seven out of 10 did not want to be members of the EU at all. That is a reflex reaction from people who have seen too many decisions taken out of their control.
	Whichever institution one looks at, it is getting further and further away from the real concerns of real people around Europe, and from the major forces affecting the world economy. On tax, for instance, we see judgments of the European Court of Justice increasingly intruding into national decision making, which was not meant to happen. It has not been commonly understood that that is happening. The Prime Minister often stands at the Dispatch Box and says that our veto on tax is safe, yet now there are judgments of the European Court of Justice about foreign subsidiaries of companies and cross-border transactions, such as dividend payments within the EU, that affect tens of billions of pounds of revenue, which the Treasury is struggling with and fears. The rights of the nation to control its own tax affairs are being eroded.

Gisela Stuart: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question, rather than make a party political point. In respect of judgments in the European Court of Justice, other countries have protection because they have a written constitution, which the European Court never challenges if it comes to a stand-off. Does that not strengthen the case for the United Kingdom having a written domestic constitution?

William Hague: Presumably, the hon. Lady is advocating that the United Kingdom pass a certain set of laws that protect it in some way, as that should have the same effect as a written constitution. It ought to have the same effect, of course. What is a constitution? It is a set of laws that are a framework for government passed by the country concerned. She raises an important and legitimate point. I favour alternative solutions, such as the European Court of Justice not pushing forward the boundaries of European competence, but she raises an entirely fair point.
	The right of the House to set taxation for this country is fundamental. Our ancestors in this place hundreds of years ago brought about a civil war in order to secure that right. The loss of the ability of the representatives of the people of this country to control taxation will further damage the standing of the European Union and its long-term future. The same can be said, and has been mentioned today, of the fisheries policy. In the interests of time, I will not go into detail about the biological and economic catastrophe that that has brought about

John Bercow: Go on.

William Hague: despite the encouragement of my hon. Friend. We need only consider the recent efforts, for which we should give the Government credit, to change the practices of fishing for sea bass, which lead to the deaths of thousands of dolphins in European waters, and the frustration created by the difficulty of getting any European agreement about that. Even on these ecological and environmental matters, the European Union is failing its citizens.
	The Commission, too, has been mentioned in the debate. Looking into the finances of an organisation is often the boring bitthe nitty-grittybut it is always important because it usually tells us most of the things we need to know about an organisationabout accountability, about its integrity and about the quality of its management. The views of people such as the famous whistleblower, Mrs. Andreasen, and the refusal of the European Court of Auditors to sign off the accounts of the Commission tell us some pretty damning things about accountability, integrity and quality of management.
	We in the House would not tolerate a Government agency 93 per cent. of whose payments were judged to be unsafe or riddled with errors, yet that is the position with the European Commission. We would not tolerate an institution where spot checks had found 25 per cent. of the farm aid in Italy, 23 per cent. in Greece and 21 per cent in Spain subject to fraud or error, or an agency that had not been able to have its accounts signed off for 10 years. It is an outrage that money is raised from the hard-working people of this country and all the countries of the European Union, yet there is such scandalous inattention to the use of that money in the European Commission.
	I cannot understand why Ministers do not go to a European Council, bang on the table about such an issue, say that the people of this country will not tolerate such things and ask when the European Commission will clean up its act. That is not a difficult thing to do. It is done in companies throughout the country and in Governments throughout the world. Why can it not be done in the European Commission?
	The Minister for Europe shakes his head as though that were a hopeless exercise, and the raising of the possibility of fraud and corruption was just one of those tedious things that the founders of the great European future must put up with. If nothing is done, the culture of complacency and arrogance in European institutions will continue. The result of economic structures being unreformed and political institutions being unresponsive will be that the outlook for Europe is far darker than it currently is.

Denis MacShane: Can the right hon. Gentleman, with his great experience, tell us what percentage of the EU budget is returned to national Governments for direct payment by national Ministries and Exchequers?

William Hague: Of course a very large percentage is returned to national Governments. In some countries that is part of the problem, but it is clear that there is an immense problem within the Commission. We have, for instance, the statement of Mrs. Andreasen that
	the chief accounting officer of the European Commission
	not the countries
	signs payments without seeing any supporting documentation.
	That was in her speech when she came to London not so long ago. In her experience, anyone could access the payment system of the European Commission
	and change amounts, change the beneficiaries, and change the dates without leaving an audit trail,
	so let us not blame the countries of the European Union. The problem is at the heart of the Commission itself. I shall give way to the Minister again, so that he can explain.

Denis MacShane: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what percentage of the payments made directly by the Commission and signed in Brussels have not been signed off by the auditors?

William Hague: I can give the hon. Gentleman plenty of percentages, including the fact that 93 per cent. of the payments are considered unsafe or riddled with errors. It is all very well the hon. Gentleman taking the side of the Commission and trying to persuade us that there is not a problem. I warn him that it is the sort of thing that deeply undermines public confidence in the European institutions.

John Bercow: rose

William Hague: I shall give way for the last time, as others want to speak.

John Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and I apologise for being absent for a great deal of his speech. As the Minister for Europe seeks intelligence and clarification, does my right hon. Friend think it a matter of the utmost seriousness that the report of the European Court of Auditors found that no less than 89 per cent. of the humanitarian aid to Zimbabwe was lost through fraud?

William Hague: My hon. Friend gives another stark example. The aid budget has been a particular problem, with possible fraud and possible corruption. A report by accountants showed that there were 10,000 possible instances of fraud and corruption in the European Commission budget. That is not to be dismissed, and it is only an example of the many different ways in which the European Union's institutions are losing the confidence of the people they were meant to represent.
	That makes the case for a more flexible Europe, as advocated by my colleagues on the Front Bench, a compelling one. It makes the case for liberalisation of the economies of Europe advocated by almost everyone in the House a vital one. If the trends of which I have spoken continue to gather pace, the issue in our lifetime will be not whether the European Union is to become a superpower, but whether it will survive at all.

Gisela Stuart: It is a privilege, but also a huge challenge, to follow the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), not least because he tends to be so much more eloquent than many of us. I was struck by his analogy when he said that this was like a dining club. It seems also to be a terribly all-male one. That has certainly been my experience on the European Convention.
	I am sad that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) is no longer present, because when he was explaining his commitment to the European Union I suddenly thought, Yes, this is the problem; it is old men dreaming. I do not mean to be unkind. For those of us in the post-war generation, our dream of the European Union was fulfilled in 1989, when the Berlin wall came down, and in 2004, when eight former communist countries came into the European Union.
	The real problem is that we have not come up with a new dream that engages young people, who take it all for granted. When I tell my children that Germany and France will never go to war again, they say, That's very interesting, mum, but I never thought that they would go to war anyway. That is a part of the problem. We think that the European Union is a fragile creature and that it will collapse if we question anything that happened in the past. Far from it: we need to look at it in a new way.
	I want to look at parts of the European constitution as it stands, assuming that it will be accepted, and to put them in the context of the negotiations about the accession of new countries and the question whether that would work. My assumption is that none of the political parties across Europe will spend the amount of political capital that they will need to spend to get the constitution ratified in the interests of a document that they do not think will see us out for at least the next 10, 15 or 20 years, given that once they have committed themselves to referendums on these treaty changes, it will become very difficult not to have referendums on future such changes.
	I therefore thought that I would go back to the text and try a modelling exercise. There are now 25 member states, we know that Romania and Bulgaria will come in soon and we have started negotiations with Croatia. Turkey is knocking on the door, and I want to make it clear that I am absolutely in favour of its accession. We have to find a way of bringing Turkey in, and not through some different sort of agreement status. We have to make it possible for it to be incorporated.
	When we look at the map of Europe, however, we see a big gap in the western Balkans. We will have to get to a point, probably more speedily than we think, at which quite a number of other countries can accede. There will be a lot of very small countries. We can even talk about Serbia and Montenegro, although I am not entirely sure whether that union is sustainable, as well as about Macedonia, Albania and Kosovo. We are potentially talking about a European Union of 34 or 35 members.
	The European Union is built on a structure that has always given disproportionate rights to small countries. That was fine when we started with a European Union of three big countries and three small ones, but it continued. In a European Union of 25 members, we have roughly six bigs and 19 smalls. In respect of the constitution as it stands, the institutional agreement limits the size of the European Parliament to 750 Members, but it also gives a minimum of six seats to every country. Expansion towards 35 member states therefore squeezes the countries in the middle.
	We are also saying that every country should have one commissioner, but the proposal on the constitution acknowledges something that I think is very importantthe need to try to reduce the size of the Commission. It proposes that, by 2014, only two thirds of countries will have a commissioner. That will not get us anywhere, however. By the time we get to 2014 and look at a European Union of perhaps 35-plus members, the Commission will have 20-plus commissionersa size that we have already said is too big. Is that structure sustainable, and will it be accepted by the key members as we expand, as I think we need to do?
	One of the countries that may enter the European Union has a very high population, and the definition of qualified majority voting as it stands in the European constitution has a population-based element. On that basis, I wonder whether Germany and France will be prepared to accept a European Union in which Turkey has higher voting rates than they have. I do not know the answer. If we really want to look ahead over the next 15 or 20 years and to have a European Union that can expand and develop, is the constitutional treaty as it stands a vehicle that allows us to do so? That decision has to be made at some stage.
	I also wonderthis is a technical pointwhether, between now and any ratification, there is still a mechanism to clarify some points in the constitution and to make them legally clearer. The issue arises out of something that I came across in close reading about the presidents of the Council and the Commission. I remember the debate on this issue in the Convention. The original draft made it clear that the President of the Commission and the President of the Council could not be the same person. There was a specific line to exclude that possibility, but it was removed, and we now have a statement that the office holder may not also hold a national mandate. There is also an argument that, in the treaty as it stands, as a commissioner may not hold any other office, that means by implication that they should not hold any other European office.
	What I am disturbed about is that, in evidence to the Dutch Parliament, Dutch Ministers made it clear that it was their aspiration that the offices should eventually be held by one person. Furthermore, Dutch legal services clearly stated in evidence to the Dutch Parliament that they thought that the correct legal interpretation was that it would be possible for the offices of President of the Commission and President of the Council to be held by one person. Of course, as the treaty stands, both those people will be appointed by qualified majority voting. As I understand it, the British Government are clear that they want those positions to be held by separate people, and I wonder whether it is possible clearly to state some basic understandings of the facts.
	I congratulate the Government on the publication of their short guide to the European Union, which goes some way towards giving an understanding. They were right to explain past developments and what the European Union means and does. Even among colleagues, real understanding of how the operations work and what the Council of Ministers does is sadly lacking. As hon. Members have already said, it is a shame that we tend to have a narrow focus in debates such as this, and that the domestic Departments are not more involved, so as to give us some indication of domestic policy.
	While Ministers are going to the Council meeting, debates about the budget are also going on. Politically, the budget debate is in many ways far more significant than debates about the European constitution. I wonder whether it is wise to make the British rebateit is called a rebatesuch a political totem. I happen to have great sympathy with the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, who said that it is the outcome that really matters. If I had been a poker player, I would have put the British rebate on the table and said, It comes at a pricethe common agricultural policy.
	When I travel across Europe, as I still do now and then, I find that colleagues talk not about whether the British rebate will be challenged, but about when it will be challenged. I recall extensive discussions with a former commissioner, Henning Christophersen, who was also a member of the praesidium of the Convention. If we examine the rebate in closer detail, it is not worth as much as it seems, because we do not get certain other payments because of it. The removal of the rebate and the CAP would result in long-term gain for both the UK and for the long-term sustainability of the European Union. Between now and the referendum, I hope that both sides occasionally generate a debate informed by facts rather than misunderstandings. One of the great virtues of the referendum is that people will make up their minds on what they want to see in the future. People do not have an appetite to leave the European Union, and they want the EU to work.
	When negotiations over the constitution broke down at Christmas last year, it was because Spain and Poland refused to sign up. No one, but no one, suggested that Spain and Poland could always leave the EUbizarrely, Poland had not even joined at that point. Why does the analysis that if a country says, No, it must leave apply only to the United Kingdom? I cannot understand that.

Kelvin Hopkins: Was it not the case that when the talks broke down because of Poland and Spain, Whitehall experienced a palpable sense of relief that the matter would not return to the agenda for another seven years? Unfortunately, it has returned.

Gisela Stuart: I shall let Whitehall speak for itself. I never understand why the British always accept being put into that kind of positionthe reason why I never understand it is probably because I was not born hereand feel that they must apologise and prove that they are good Europeans. By the way, the British are extremely good Europeans.
	Enlargement has received cross-party support. As far as I can see, we are the only country that has always supported Turkey's application. The issue has never been party political and has always concerned how we can make Turkey's application happen. The rest of Europe has always seen that policy as a fiendish plot by perfidious Albion to bring in Turkey in order to break up the European Union; far from it. In future, Europe must achieve greater co-ordination in its foreign and security policy, and Turkey is such a significant player that it is incumbent on us to make sure that it is with us.

William Cash: Examining matters historically, does the hon. Lady agree that Britain, far from being perfidious, has been the bulwark of democratic freedom in Europe for at least the last century and probably for much longer? After an intensive internal debate, The Economist has significantly shifted its position on the EU. On 25 September, it stated:
	A shell of an organisation called 'The European Union' will probably be preserved, but some of its current members might even quit and negotiate new association agreements.
	Does she have any sympathy with that view? She probably knows that I do.

Gisela Stuart: I hope that that does not happen. I remember The Economist front page when the Single European Act was passed. It felt that the Single European Act was disastrous and that it should be torn up. If we do not end up with a structure that allows us to move forward, the danger exists that such a break-up might occur.
	It is depressing that the legal instrument to take the Lisbon process forward was not incorporated in the constitution, because the institutions of the Commission felt that that process would leave them out of the loop. Self-centred institutional interests prevailed rather than a desire to make the process work, which is a great pity. I make that criticism because I want the European Union to work and my children to experience the benefits that I had. I do not want to break up the European Union. As the negotiations with Turkey continue, I hope that we stick to what the constitution currently says on religious valuessome people argue for that because they want to keep Turkey out.
	On military, security and defence policy and the European Union, we are currently making tremendous progress with or without the constitutional framework. If one visits the west Balkans, one finds huge changes in the way in which European Union countries deploy their national troops. Over the past six months, national caveats have been lifted to an unprecedented extent. European Union countries have done that because the military has learned from experience and convinced their politicians to change the political framework. In a sense, that is how the European Union must proceed. It must respond to what people want it to do and not hope that a framework imposed from the top will deliver the goods.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart). I miss our weekly visits to Brussels as members of the Convention on the Future of Europe, which drew up this wretched document. When the constitution fails, perhaps we will be sent out again to do a better job and will listen to the instructions given to the Convention, which were not to write a constitution, but to create a more democratic Europe that is closer to its citizens.
	I agree with many of the hon. Lady's observations, and particularly those on Turkey. Those of us who want to draw Turkey in a European direction should be extremely worried about the constitution on those grounds alone. In my view, the constitution will make Turkey's accession almost impossible. Indeed, I shall go further: apologists for the European constitution sometimes say that enlargement10 countries joined in Maymakes it necessary. In fact, the opposite is the case: greater variety and diversity in Europe make the case for a more varied treaty relationship and count against the command and control mechanism that is entrenched in this European constitution.
	I was interested in the hon. Lady's question, which I hope that the Minister for Europe will answer, about whether the President of the Commission could be same person as the President of the Council of the European Union. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is adamant that that could not happen under the constitution, but I have received legal advice that the situation is ambiguous. That matter needs clearing up. Any idea that the constitution brings clarity, certainty and finality to those difficult issues of who does what in Europe is clearly at variance with the fact that large chunks of it are already subject to different legal analyses by different lawyers in different countries.
	I have the final documenta Christmas paperback landed on my desk a week ago. I do not know whether it was sent to all my hon. Friends or just to me, on the ground that I am most likely to read it.

John Bercow: I am very surprised about that.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I am sure that my hon. Friend will form a queue with others at the Vote Office in order to read it in time for Christmas.
	The draft constitution runs to more than 500 pages and costs 47 if someone actually wants to buy it. In our last debate, the Minister supported the idea that it should be sent to every household in Britain. If I sent it to one of my constituents, the postage, I am informed by the post office outside, would be 4.31, so at a rough estimate the postage cost alone to the Government would be 130 million.

Denis MacShane: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point entirely; I made a similar one in the last debate. Is he saying that it is his personal position, or the position of the Conservative party, that this money should thus be spent?

David Heathcoat-Amory: I can certainly find better ways of spending that money, as, I think, could my constituents.
	I do agree on the need for a debate on the treaty's contents. I am therefore rather alarmed by the pocket edition that has been published by the Foreign Office, which is presumably intended to be some form of substitute. I have a copy here. It is longer than the whole of the American constitution, so it is still, although potted, pretty lengthy. What alarms me about it is the inaccuracies, half-truths and distortions that it contains.
	I should like the Minister to tell me why, for instance, the document describes the post of the new European Foreign Minister as simply the merging of two of the existing foreign policy jobs under the existing European Union. That is a complete distortion. Anyone with the slightest acquaintance with the real constitution knows that there is a vastly expanded role for this new post. The new Foreign Minister for Europe will conduct foreign policy on behalf of member states. He, or conceivably she, will run the external action service, which is Eurospeak for the European Foreign Ministry. Indeed, under the terms of the constitution, by declaration appended to it, work on the setting up of that Ministry is already proceeding, even before any votes in referendums have been concluded. The Foreign Minister will also run the European diplomatic service, convene and chair the meetings of Foreign Ministers, and set the agenda for those meetings. None of that is in the existing treatiesit goes way beyond anything that is described for the existing jobs.

Denis MacShane: As the House is sparsely attended, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman and I can have this dialogue. All the actions that he describes are carried out principally by the Commissioner for External Relations. Article I-28 of the new treaty says that the new European Minister for Foreign Affairs will carry out policies
	as mandated by the Council.
	That means that he or she will need the unanimous agreement of the Council of Ministers of all 25 member states before he or she can do anything. For the rest, he continues the work currently carried out by Mr. Patten, who has just retired as External Relations Commissioner.
	The right hon. Gentleman is making heavy weather of this. I understand his general opposition, but he should not be unfair on a very accurate and precise document produced by our civil service in the Foreign Office and which provides a neutral description of what is in the treaty.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I will give another example, then. This document says that the European Foreign Minister would not replace Foreign Ministers of the member countries, but article III-206 of the constitution clearly says that in the United Nations Security Council, the European Foreign Minister will replace the British Foreign Secretary when he is describing or defending a European position. So at the request of the European Foreign Minister, he has the right to replace the British Foreign Secretary. That is in the constitution.

Denis MacShane: Again, the European Union cannot be a member of the UN Security Councilonly its sovereign member states can. That is why Germany is seeking its own independent permanent seat on the Security Council. The existing practice in general UN bodies and discussions where the European Union has a common policy as represented by one of its functionaries is what is stipulated in the treatyit carries on existing practice. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the EU cannot become a member of the United Nations. With respect, he should notI suppose that he has todescribe this procedure in a way that does not correspond to the reality of what is in the treaty or is the legal basis of how the UN can operate.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I am not saying that the European Union would become a member of the United NationsI am saying that the British Foreign Secretary would be replaced by the European Foreign Minister at the request of that European Foreign Minister. That is what it says in the European constitution. It is interesting that the Minister did not dispute that.
	I will give the Minister another example. The Foreign Office document says that the European charter of fundamental rights
	does not create new rights, but simply highlights existing ones.
	Well, that is interesting; let me give him an example to the contrary. Article 13 of the charter, which forms the whole of part 2 of the constitution, says:
	Scientific research shall be free of constraint.
	That is an unqualified guarantee that a scientist conducting experiments will not be able to be constrained by ethical considerations or considerations of animal welfare, so when the Union starts to legislate in the area of research and developmentagain, that is provided for in the constitutiona scientist who is constrained may well appeal under article 13 of the charter. There is nothing whatever about that in the existing treaties, nor in the separate European convention on human rights. It is a new right that clearly and explicitly extends rights into wholly new areas. It is therefore factually incorrect for the Foreign Office to claim the opposite.

Tony Baldry: My right hon. Friend is making some powerful pointsalthough spiritually we may be slightly at odds in our approach to the European Union. During the referendum campaign on our accession to the European Union, the Government of the day did not publish any such documents. This document is clearly intended to influence public opinion on the referendum. If it is not accurate, surely it should be referred to the Electoral Commission, because there must come a point when it is partial electioneering as opposed to independent, objective advice given by the Government of the day.

David Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful point. We already know that the Electoral Commission has complained to the Government about the privileged position that the Government have given themselves in the run-up to the referendum. We await the Government's response on that point. My hon. Friend correctly says that the commission should widen its inquiries and start to look very carefully at what is in this propagandist, one-sided and partial documentation that the Government are printing and publishing with taxpayers' money and may send to every household. If they send it to public libraries, it will immediately be filed in the fiction department. I would be worried if it were sent to everybody as a basis on which they can make up their minds about the future of the constitution.

Denis MacShane: Article II-73, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, reads:
	The arts and scientific research shall be free of constraint. Academic freedom shall be respected.
	I rather thought that since Galileo and Newton that was a fundamental position of British freedom. If the right hon. Gentleman is now saying the oppositethat we should not write this in as a common rule that we want other EU member states to respect, this is not the Conservative party but a return to some mediaeval rejection of freedom for arts and scientific research and, above all, the freedom of academe to do their work as they think best. The right hon. Gentleman is on very odd ground.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The Minister for Europe has missed the point again. I am not saying that the right is good or bad; I am disputing the Foreign Office's assertion that it is not new. It is clear from the explanations to article 13 that it is a new right. They state:
	This right is deduced primarily from the right to freedom of thought and expression.
	I am not considering thought and expression but the possibility of countervailing laws to circumscribe and restrict the right of a scientist to undertake procedures and experiments being deemed illegal under the charter. We can debate whether that is good or bad on another occasion. I am keen on animal welfare and I believe that scientists should be constrained by law in what they can do to animals. However, a scientist would claim that, under the article, his right to research is entirely unrestricted. That is new. There is nothing about that in the European convention on human rights or the existing treaty. It is therefore factually incorrect to claim that the right is not new. I should like the Minister for Europe, at the end of the debate and after taking advice, to correct the contents of this taxpayer-funded document.

Gisela Stuart: I realise that we are now in danger of making anyone who may still be listening to the debate switch off completely. However, although the right hon. Gentleman makes a legitimate point, which he is right to raise, does not article 51, which deals with the field of application at the end of the charter of fundamental rights, cover it? The British Government have gone to extraordinary lengths to get what are called horizontal clauses included to ensure that the provisions of the charter apply to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union. The provisions therefore relate only to the Union's agencies, not to member states.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I hesitate to correct the hon. Lady, but she knows that the charter covers not only EU institutions but member states when they implement EU directives or regulations. As I said earlier, the constitution states that the EU will be able to legislate on research and development. It is therefore entirely plausible that the EU will pass laws on scientific research that member states have to implement. A scientist could therefore easily appeal to the European Court of Justice if he were restricted in any way. Even the hon. Lady's comments do not undermine my point that the right is new. Nothing like it exists, and that contradicts the assertion in the document to which I have alluded.
	If Government literature is inaccurate and the original text, which I have in my hand, is ludicrously long, how will people make up their minds about the European constitution? I suspect that they will do that by asking themselves some simple questions: do they want more powers to be transferred to the EU? How have the existing EU institutions discharged their current powers?
	On transfer, there can be no doubt. The Union advances into new areascompetencies, as they are calledsuch as criminal justice. Sixty-three new matters will be subjected to majority voting for the first time. The excuse for that is that it will make the EU more efficient. By efficiency, the ability to pass more EU legislation is meant. Last year, the European Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member, examined 1,080 new proposals from the EU. We do not therefore suffer from lack of EU legislation. The Foreign Secretary said in his opening remarks that the Commission was girding itself to repeal possibly up to 100 items of legislation. That is a tiny percentage of even one year's output from the current EU under the existing treaties.
	The pamphlet gets one thing right when it states that the constitution
	gives national parliaments the power to ask for changes to proposed European laws.
	Thanks very much. We shall have the power to request changes. We have that at the moment, but we do not have the power to do anything about the avalanche of new regulations. The Government regularly mention the need for fewer business regulationsI have lost count of the times I have heard Ministers claiming that it will all be different in future. They say that the EU has turned over a new leaf and often point to conclusions at the end of European summits, where it is solemnly agreed that the EU will regulate in future only when absolutely necessary. I shall give only one example to the contrary.
	In the new Session, we must transpose into British law the art resale levy, known in French as the droit de suite directive. It insists that when a work of art by a living artist is resold, a small percentage has to be collected and paid to the artist. It applies in France and Germany, with the result that works of art of any value are sold not in France or Germany but in London. Under majority votingwith the British Government, I am glad to say, voting against itthe new directive will be imposed on the British art market. American art dealers cannot believe their luck. Expensive and valuable works of art will be taken from the London art market, flown across the Atlantic and sold in New York where, of course, the levy will not be paid.
	Yet the EU and the Government signed up to the Lisbon process, which is supposed to be about competitiveness and making us a high growth zone in the new global business environment. It would be comic if it were not so tragic. Of course, the constitution contains nothing that will do anything about the matter. Indeed, it will make matters worse because the Union is now advancing into new areas such as energy. New majority voting will overwhelm us in the remaining matters where we continue to have a veto.
	Let us consider the point about whether existing institutions discharge even their current budgetary powers efficiently or effectively. I can add little to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) on the subject. He mentioned Marta Andreasen, whom I met last week when she came to London to give a speech. I had dinner with her and others afterwards and it was sad to hear her recount her lonely struggle to bring some sense into the European accounting system. She described how European accounts do not even have double entry bookkeeping. That was invented 500 years ago in Venice but it has not yet reached Brussels. We are considering not a small amount of money but a budget of 100 billion euros a year. Mrs. Andreasen, who was the first qualified accountant to be made chief accountant, did what any accountant would do. When she discovered the mess, she started to complain about it and see her superiors. She was eventually sacked for disloyalty, and it is particularly shameful that the European Parliament, which is supposed to stand up for the rights of taxpayers, refused to give her a hearing. During the whole messy business of her dismissal, another scandal arose in EUROSTAT, the agency that draws up official statistics for the European Union. It was found to be riddled with fraud and error, and slush funds and hidden accounts were discovered. Once again, no one lost their job. The only people who lose their jobs in the EU are the whistleblower who draw attention to the problems in the first place.

Graham Brady: The EUROSTAT affair is linked to the point that the Minister for Europe made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). Those funds should be spent and controlled directly by the Commission, yet there is no control and rampant fraud.

David Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is quite right. The excuse that much of the money is spent in member states is a feeble one. The accounting system is based in Brussels, and Mrs. Andreasen told us that there is no audit trail at all. When something goes wrong, it cannot be traced back to the person responsible in the Commission's accounting department for authorising that money. There is a complete lack of accountability at every level, and it will get much worse under the European constitution, because the same institutions will be given even more powers and staff. The whole thing will get bigger, even though its foundations are shaky.
	In the Convention on the Future of Europe, I tabled a number of amendments to try to rectify the position. I suggested that when the European Court of Auditors discovered problems in a budget line, further money should not be spent under that budget heading until the auditors were happy. If there was fraud, mismanagement and waste in a national programme operated by a member state, no money would be spent at all the following year. We would simply turn off the tap. Of course, no one took the slightest notice of my amendments, because the people who drafted the European constitution are employed in the institutions and will receive all the extra powers and, indeed, expenditure.
	The European Union has an enormous problem. It has suffered a loss of public confidence, and there is a growing gap between the European political class and ordinary members of the public. The constitution, instead of solving those problems and reforming the institutions, makes everything much worse. My concluding thought is simply that it does not have to be like that. This should not be the only Europe on offer. There is a new, different and better Europe trying to be born, but the first thing that we must do is get rid of this wretched European constitution. Fortunately, the means to do so exist in the referendum that we have been promised. I challenge the Government to give the people a say on the constitution in the referendum without further delay.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am pleased to participate in our debate and to follow so many interesting and good speakers, especially the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who gave an excellent and entertaining speech. There have been many other good speeches, but I was particularly struck by those two. Like the right hon. Gentlemen, I strongly oppose the current proposals on Europe, although we probably differ on what we want in their place. However, we can debate that another time.
	I did not intend to talk about the euro, but I shall dwell on it because we have moved in a positive direction. Five years ago, the Socialist Campaign Group of Labour MPs, to which I am proud to belong, invited Sir Edward George to an open meeting. He made a sound case against the euro, and I asked him whether he was suggesting that it should be kicked into the long grass. He said, Yes, it should be kicked a long way into the very long grass. It clearly is in the very long grass now and I am sure that Sir Edward, in his retirement, will be pleased about thatas, indeed, am I. One need only compare unemployment in the eurozone and than in Britain since the establishment of the euro to see that things are getting worse there. We are doing relatively better outside the eurozonethe constraints of membership will cause serious political stresses in those countries very soon, especially with the depreciation of the dollar, which could cut the eurozone economy off at the knees. Those countries must start to manage their economies very differently.
	My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke about Turkey. I am an enthusiastic member of European Standing Committee B, an exciting scrutiny Committee; unfortunately, not too many members of it attend, and most interestingly, the Liberal Democrat members hardly ever attend. Given that the Liberal Democrats are the most enthusiastic Europhiles in the House, I am surprised that they do not attend, because the Committee is always interesting.

Anthony Steen: As a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), may I tell the hon. Gentleman that our Committee is in exactly the same position? The Liberal Democrat members never turn up.

Kelvin Hopkins: I have not yet reached that elevated position, but I am fascinated to hear about it. I should point out, however, that some Liberal Democrat Members have, like me, a more sensible view of such mattersone of them is in the Chamber today, and I understand that there are one or two others. I digress.
	We were all in favour of Turkey applying for membership of the European Union, although that is some way off at this stage. I have always been in favour of enlargement, precisely because it will make Europe a much looser association of states, and more power will inevitably move to member states and away from the centre. I push that argument whenever I can, and the admission of Turkey would certainly have that effect.
	Some questions were raised about Turkey's membership. Amnesty still has some concerns about Turkey's human rights recordalthough it is improving, it still has some way to go. It is important that we press the human rights argument at every turn. We do not want backsliding in that respect anywhere in the European Union and we must keep pressing Turkey on that point.
	Interestingly, the document that we read talked about the need for more public sector restructuring, which, I think, is code for privatisation. I do not want a Europe that makes privatisation a condition of membership. I am against privatisation of our public services, and Turkey should not be pressed in that direction either. Apparently, 80 per cent. of its economy is already in the private sector, so 20 per cent. in the public sector is not unreasonable for a modern, democratic state.
	The document also raised the issue of the common agricultural policy. Clearly, that would be problematic, as a much poorer country with a very large agricultural sector would put enormous pressure on the CAP. The document said that the CAP would be applied only in a limited way to Turkey. It did not even say that there would be a phasing-in of the CAP arrangements, as is the case for other new member states, I think, but that there would not be full membership of the CAP. I will return to the CAP later.
	A broader point has been raised about whether Turkey is part of what we might know as Europe. That is not an unreasonable point. It is perfectly reasonable for Turkey to join the organisation, however, although perhaps we ought to give it a different name, as I suggested in European Standing Committee B. I have wrestled with possible different names, none of which sound impressive or snappy, but one possibility would be the Western Eurasian Association of Democratic States. That would be a reasonable description[Hon. Members: WEADS?]

Gisela Stuart: I am always puzzled by this argument, because no one in history has referred to Turkey as the sick man of Asia. It was always referred to as the sick man of Europe.

Kelvin Hopkins: I do not take a hard line on such issues, but I know that some do not regard Turkey as part of what we know as Europe. I am prepared to be corrected on that.
	In time, however, I believe that other states, further afield, might want to join the organisation. For examplethese are realistic possibilitiessome of the Francophone north African states, as they move towards becoming much more democratic and modern, might want to join. Indeed, I think that France would be keen to have at least one other Francophone country inside the European Union, or whatever it becomes, to bolster the Francophone component, as such countries speak French as their primary language, after Arabic, I suppose.
	Europe will be a looser association of states. The imposition of a rigid set of rules and a rigid constitution was conjured up in the minds of those like Sir Edward Heath who thought of the European Union as a smaller group of western nations essentially based around France and Germanythe post-war deal. Those who still have that mindset about the design of Europe are wrong about the future, because Europe will not be like that. It is a great mistake to impose rigidities on it.
	The Foreign Secretary referred to the budget. As we have heard, the Court of Auditors has failed to sign off the Commission's expenditure for the 10th consecutive year. The budget is clearly not audited properly. It is not run by accountants. Many of my hon. Friendsfine peopleare accountants, and they are doubtless very worried about the state of the European Union's finances.
	The Foreign Secretary made a good point about the need to reduce the proportion of member states' national income to be contributed to the European budget. That is an excellent proposal, but implementing it would be politically difficultalthough there is one simple way in which that could be achieved at a stroke. As I have said before, abolishing the common agricultural policy would solve many problems: the problems caused by new nations joining the EU, our own rebate problem, and problems that the CAP causes in the wider world.
	I have often described the CAP as an elephant on the lawn. When people talk about reform they turn the elephant around occasionally, or take a little of its food away temporarily. Perhaps it does not grow so much in one year, and then grows more in another. It is still there, thoughand elephants rightly belong in Africa and Asia. Indeed, if I may pursue the metaphor, if we helped the agricultural nations in Africa and Asia rather than the agriculture sector in the EU, we would do a better job for the world and would be seen in a more benign light by those outside the EU for whom the CAP causes great difficulties.
	The CAP should simply be abolished and agriculture policy should be repatriated to member states. If Britain withdrew from the CAPif that were possiblewe would do better outside it. We would not have to make the contributions and we would even have an opportunity to buy cheap surpluses.

John Burnett: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is making profoundly sound points about matters such as the constitution and the euro, although I am disappointed that he did not give us a little meander through the growth and stability pact.
	Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the CAP is, in a sense, a voluntary policy? Dairy quotas were imposed on us in about 1982 or 1983. I do not know whether Italy still operates that system, but it is preposterous. Has the hon. Gentleman any views on the common fisheries policy?

Kelvin Hopkins: I have made too many meanders already, but I will say that I also oppose the common fisheries policy, to which many more able speakers have referred. People ask me why I comment on the CFP, given that I represent Luton, North, which is a long way from the fishing fleets. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) frequently speaks about the issue.The growth and stability pact is also a nonsense. I have spoken about it before and I fear that I would speak for too long if I went into it now, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The question of whether countries are adhering to the pact seems to trouble the Commission almost weekly.
	There are problems with structural funds as well. Much of Britain's structural fund spending is to be removed. In that instance at least we received some kind of payback for our EU membership, although not as much as other countries. In fact, many of my hon. Friends who enthuse about the EU do so simply because they have received little bits of European money in their constituencies. Well, those little bits of European money will not be there in future; they will be replaced, I understand, by our own domestic Government spending. I am very pleased for the areas that need the money, but I think that that will make people feel rather differently about the EU.
	We will in fact be paying in more, because we will not be getting anything back. If we could guarantee that all the extra money that we pay out will go to the poorer nations and help the new member states to raise their living standards, and to converge with richer countries such as us, that would be fine. But we know that at least 50 per cent. of the budget will be swallowed up by the CAPand it is the CAP that causes the problems.
	The structural funds arrangement is clumsy. It is designed to keep people enthusiastic about the European Union by paying money directly to regions and labelling it as European money. I would prefer a simple fiscal transfer arrangement whereby rich countries pay in, poorer ones take out and the latter decide democratically what they want to do with that extra money.

Tony Baldry: Is there anything in the European Union that the hon. Gentleman thinks worth while?

Kelvin Hopkins: Belonging to an association of states with shared values in terms of democracy, human rights, the economy, the welfare state, redistribution and trade union and workers' rights is important, and those are the values that I would stress. Other organisations to which we belong, such as the Commonwealth, do not have that many rules; nevertheless, there is still a sense of their being right. The Europe that I am looking to would of course be a much closer arrangement than the Commonwealth, but even the Commonwealth does at least attempt to insist on certain standards of democratic behaviour. We must do the same within the European Union.
	I should point out that I certainly regard myself as a European. I am enthusiastic about Europe in every senseculturally and historicallyand I go on holiday there every year. I try to speak European languages and almost all the things that I enjoyperhaps barring jazz, which is African-Americanare connected with Europe. I love nothing better than discussing issues such as these with European socialists; indeed, I was doing so only this morning during a very pleasurable meeting with a left-wing politician from Denmark. I discovered that we had shared cultural attitudes and I found the conversation interesting and stimulating.
	As I have pointed out before, in the 1970s and 1980s we urged that European economies should be run according to a policy of co-ordinated reflation, in an effort to overcome the problem of unemployment. Such a policy would be very sensible and much better than the rigid deflation currently taking place in the eurozone. We could easily replace the eurozone with co-ordinated reflation to good effect, and there would be benefits all round.
	Mention has been made of the aid budget, which is frequently discussed in European Standing Committee B. I apologise for continually referring to that Committee, but I am an enthusiastic member of it. We know that the Department for International Development does an excellent job with its aid budget. Our reputation is high throughout the world in that regard, and especially since the Treasury took the unusual step of forming a holy alliance with DFID in an effort to push the aid budget. Of course, we should spend moreall rich countries shouldbut we are doing well. The aid is distributed efficiently and is going to the right places, which is in marked contrast with what happens in the EU.
	We have already heard about corruption in the EU, but even when corruption is not involved, EU aid distribution is very inefficient and misdirected. Such aid does not go to the poorest nations in sub-Saharan Africa. Much of it goes to the slightly better off countries in northern Africathe Francophone countriesin what amounts to a political deal. Aid should not be about political deals, but about helping those who need help. We could repatriate the aid budget to the benefit not of ourselves, but of those who receive it. Such distribution would be more efficient and, as a result, our reputation in these matters would be even higher than it is.
	I come to an issue that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) at a recent meeting in Paris. He said that Europe had become rather  la carte. Despite attempts at rigid control from the centre, Europe has, in reality, become  la carte: some member states belong to the eurozone and some do not; some sign up to Schengen and some do not. In some respects, we have opted out and have derogations from European legislation. The Prime Minister has insisted on some of them, and quite rightly so. I believe that there are other respects in which, even now, we would do well to seek exemptions.
	One such example would be the alcohol and tobacco duties regime. Britain has the right approach to taxing and imposing duties on alcohol and tobacco, keeping up the price for public health reasons. It is also a tremendous producer of revenue that can be spent on other vital aspects of public services. Yet we are being constantly undermined by doubt about the precise rules governing our personal imports of alcohol and tobacco. If there were a definite numerical limita lower one than is implied now, and not just guidance about personal useto the amount of alcohol that could be imported, and if there were rigid controls over the amount of tobacco coming in it would be beneficial in every possible way. Above all, it would raise money for good purposes.
	We were told in the pre-Budget speech, if I remember correctly, that the evasion of tobacco duties is equivalent to about 2.5 billion a year. For half the amount that we lose through the smuggling of tobacco, we could have free long-term care for the elderly. If we had an understanding with Brussels that we were exempt from its insistence on an open market in tobacco and alcohol, we could reap all-round benefits to public health and have more money to spend on other valuable services.
	The problem with Europe is that it is governed by political elites. I am indebted to a colleague in the No campaign for pointing out that Europe's political elites at the top levelthe diplomats and governing minoritiesare always enthusiastic about Europe. If we come down to the next layerperhaps to the Parliamentswe will find some sceptics, making more of a balance overall. Probably the majority will go along with the elite because they seek advancement in government and so forth, but at least a proportion of people will be less enthusiastic. By the time we get down to the electorate, we find that a very large number of people, sometimes majorities, are sceptical, and the elites are always worried about such majorities. It seems to me that, in the end, elites have to be governed by majorities. The people have to make their choice and they are not fools, despite the propaganda constantly pumped at themparticularly on the continentby the elites. The people still seem to have sceptical views because they have a feeling that something is being taken away from them.
	The Swedes voted no in their euro referendum because they believed that their welfare state, which is well funded on the basis of a high level of taxation, would be taken away from them. That prospect frightened many people on the leftworking people, trade unionists, social democrats and so forthinto voting no. Opposition to the euro was not right-wing, but left-wingand quite rightly so. Those people saw the EU moving in a neo-liberal direction, which they did not want. The struggle on economics inside the EU is between social democracy and neo-liberalism, and many working people do not want neo-liberalism.

William Cash: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I share many of his views on questions of principle about the EU. I speak to him in a spirit of mutual constructiveness about problems on the left-wing side of the argument. I am thinking of Laurent Fabius in France and the Labour party in this Parliament. I know of many early-day motions and expressions of concern from Labour Members, but I am not convinced that I have ever seen anything that I would regard as a serious revolt over Europe, equivalent to what occurs in the Conservative party. When push comes to shove, I believe that such revolts are the only way in which these matters will ultimately be resolved.

Kelvin Hopkins: I do not want to remind the hon. Gentleman about this, but the previous Conservative Government voted for Maastricht. When they went into opposition, the Conservatives underwent a conversion and opposed it. It is interesting that, in Britain especially, political parties tend to be sceptical about Europe when they are in opposition, and to change their minds when in government. I may be old fashioned, but my rigid mind means that I have not changed my views for a long time. I am always happy to be challenged about what I saypoliticians have to be like thatbut I have not been persuaded that my view is incorrect.
	I have been speaking for rather a long time, but a few interventions have led me down paths that I was not able to pursue. I believe that a case can be made for a democratic socialist Europe, but not for a neo-liberal Europe. I and others support a democratic socialist Europe, through the Centre for Social Europe and other organisations.
	There is a legitimate and strong socialist case against the constitution. I hope that the constitution will be voted down by one country or another when the matter goes to referendum and that it will not come into force. That would allow us to return to the present status quo and to argue more sensibly for a better Europe with full employment, equality, proper social protection and pensions, and a welfare state that benefits everyone.
	I consider myself to be a good European because I want a good Europe for all Europeans, and one that is beneficial in the wider world. The approach adopted by me and those comrades who share my view is the way forward.

Tony Baldry: It was worth turning up to this debate just to hear the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), who represents a species of politician that I thought had died out with the Labour Euro-Safeguards campaign. The Minister for Europe can never again dare to associate the no campaign or Euroscepticism solely with the Conservative party. We have just heard the authentic voice of Eurosceptic Labour, and even the word comrades was used. Clearly, it is worth hearing that voice more often, explaining the Euro-Safeguards campaign. I thought that people who used such language had all been purged from the new model Labour party.
	I give advance warning to the House that my speech this afternoon will have two parts. The first part will be very bad tempered, and the second very tedious. I shall begin with the bad-tempered bit. European policy affects pretty well everything that we do in this House and in this country. It is not acceptable that it is debated only in the European Standing Committees and the Select Committee on European Scrutiny.
	As Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, I was fortunate to be able to attend the trade negotiations at Cancun, and I am grateful to the Government for that invitation. However, that visit brought it home to me that the EU negotiates in those areas, such as trade policy, where it has total competence. Pascal Lamy had very little time to brief Ministers from the nations involved about what was happening in the trade negotiations. In fact, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry spent a large chunk of her visit in Honduras, where she opened an embassy and a new office for the Department for International Development. I am sad to say that the office was closed recently because of cuts in the relevant bit of DFID's budget as a result of extra spending on Iraq.
	I shall speak about trade policy later, which is now an EU competence. We ought to have a debate on EU trade policy at least once a year, with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the Dispatch Box.
	The House will know that my principal interest in this House at the moment is my chairmanship of the International Development Committee. We have lots of cockshies: we had one today in DFID questions, and when the hon. Member for Luton, North spoke a moment ago about EU development assistance. All sorts of arguments can be put forward about the external affairs budget, and so on. We never have a coherent debate in the House on EU development assistance at which the Secretary of State for International Development gives an account of the quarter of all UK development spending that goes to the EU.
	Not long ago, the International Development Committee published a report on migration and development, including many issues that relate to the European Union, such as migration policy and the recruitment of doctors, nurses and other skilled people from developing countries. We did not have a debate on that.
	Twice a year, we have these debates on Europe, but they are like group therapy sessions. The usual suspects turn up and make pretty much the same speechesthey are good and enjoyable speeches, but we do not move on much. My bad-tempered point is that the Procedure Committee should look at how we can find more time for debates on the Floor of the House on specific motions on Europe and EU policy, rather than just these general debates twice a year, which are no proper substitute for accountable debate. The Minister for Europe is an honourable man and I am sure that he will ensure that Ministers in other Departments read what colleagues on both sides of the House have said today on specific policy areas, but no coherence will emerge if we just have these group therapy sessions.
	The comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) were important. At some stage before the end of this Parliament, we should have a proper debate on the constitution. I am prepared to bet any amount of money that the Government business managers will do anything other than have a debate on the constitution on the Floor of the House before this Parliament finishes. If an issue is as important as our membership of the European Union, we should give more time to specific motions on it on the Floor of the House.
	It is now time for my tedious bit.

Denis MacShane: That was not too bad.

Tony Baldry: Well, the tedious bit will be really tedious.
	The International Development Committee recently took evidence from officials from the Department for International Development and the Department of Trade and Industry on Cotonou. We all left the meeting feeling that we had failed the Houseand the House itself had failedby not giving any proper attention to Cotonou and its potential impact on developing countries. It is certainly as important as Doha. Glenys Kinnock, who was co-president of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, described Cotonou as the bedrock of Europe's development policy, but there has been little debate about it in this House. Indeed, since Cotonou was agreed in 2000 and trade negotiations begun, only one articlethat I could findhas been published in the UK press. There have been no statements to the House on Cotonou.
	A few weeks ago, the Under-Secretary of State for International Development was in Brussels to discuss issues surrounding Cotonou, but no subsequent statement was made to the Housenot even a written statement in Hansard. On 3 December, there was a ministerial meeting to review the Cotonou agreement, but again no statement was made to the Housenot even a written one. On 2 December, there was at least a debate in Westminster Hall on the Caribbean and that brought the first mention of Cotonou in the House since an oral question three Sessions ago. These trade negotiations will have a significant impact on Caribbean countriesa quarter of the Commonwealth is in the Caribbeanand on the many poor, least developed countries in Africa and the Pacific. Indeed, the Prime Minister is talking about a Commission for Africa next year.
	The Under-Secretary would not have volunteered any information on Cotonou in Westminster Hall unless he had been prompted to do so. Even then, he gave us only a short paragraph that had been passed to him by officialsand that was despite having been in Brussels the previous week to discuss Cotonou and at a ministerial meeting on the issue the next day. The coalition against the European Commission's proposals on Cotonou is widespread. The solitary press article to which I alluded earlier appeared in the Financial Times almost two years ago. It raised the concerns set out in a World Bank report, which called on Cotonou to be radically simplifiedan important point, given that EU commissioners will have more bag carriers at trade summits than African, Caribbean and Pacific countries will have lawyers. Non-governmental organisations, including ActionAid, Oxfam, Christian Aid, CAFODthe Catholic Agency for Overseas Developmentand a number of others, have been circulating Members with a briefing entitled Six Reasons to Oppose Economic Partnership Agreements in their Current Form. I acknowledge that economic partnership agreements are part of the tedious language of trade negotiations, which is why it might be helpful if debates such as this could take place when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was in the Chamber to answer them; however, they are the new instruments that will be introduced to replace the existing arrangements with ACP nations.
	Earlier this month, officials from the Department for International Development and the Department of Trade and Industry gave evidence on Cotonou to the International Development Committee. After hearing that evidence, every member of the Committee believes that we have not sufficiently kept our eyes on the ball on Cotonou and on the impact that discussions will have on the least developed countries, in particular the ACP countries.
	One of the officials described the negotiations on Cotonou as
	a highly uneven playing field
	for developing countries to negotiate on. There is no idiot's guide to Cotonou, but these are the basics. In 2000, the Cotonou agreement replaced Lom, and it marked a shift from non-reciprocal tariff preferences to establishing reciprocal trade agreements for all ACP countries. The Cotonou agreement proposes to create World Trade Organisation-compatible economic partnership agreementsEPAsbetween the EU and the six ACP regions. The ACP group will continue to exist, but its role and scope will be radically altered. That will mean that quite wealthy countries, such as the Bahamas, will negotiate with quite poor countries, such as St. Kitts and Nevis, under the same arrangements.
	The EU has said that the economic partnership agreements should have a strong developmental emphasisalthough we have yet to see evidence of thatbut that they should also include reciprocity, so preference will go. In other words, as the markets of the EU open up, the EU expects the markets of the poorer countries to open up simultaneously. In evidence to the Select Committee, officials stated that economic partnership agreements will
	promote development through trade by maintaining ACP preferential access to the EU market.
	However, they also said that the regional trade agreements must include reciprocity. Ministers need to indicate how those two seemingly incompatible objectivesmaintaining preferential access and including reciprocitywill be put into effect in a WTO-compatible manner. If that does not happen, which side will the UK be on? Will it be on the side of those who want to help the least developed countries or of those who want to drive a mercantilist solution as speedily as possible?
	Officials also said that
	further analysis will need to be done to look at which sectors, and on what time scale, reciprocal market opening by the ACP would best meet their developmental needs.
	Who will conduct the analysis and, given that the economic partnership agreements are due to begin in 2008, when will it be carried out?
	It should also be remembered that countries such as St. Kitts and Nevis, which has only four trade negotiators, are simultaneously having to deal with the ACP negotiations on Cotonou and the Doha negotiations at the WTO, which will be going on until next year. In a recent speech to ACP Heads of State, Kofi Annan said:
	A major concern, for example, is the impact that the trade liberalisation to be wrought by EPAs would have on fiscal revenue. Many of your countries are heavily dependent on income from tariffs for government revenue. The prospect of falling government revenue, combined with falling commodity prices and huge external indebtedness, imposes a heavy burden on your countries and threatens to further hinder your ability to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.
	That is rather powerful stuff from the Secretary-General of the United Nations. He is effectively saying that our Prime Minister is setting up a Commission for Africa on the one hand, yet on the other what the European Union, through the Cotonou negotiations, is putting in place threatens, to quote the words of the Secretary-General, to hinder least developed countries'
	ability to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.
	There does not seem to me to be very much policy coherence. The UN Secretary-General is telling the ACP states that negotiations with Europe will make life a lot more difficult for them rather than a lot easier.
	We should consider dropping the principle of reciprocity in the EPA negotiations, because reciprocity between the EU and the ACP countries constitutes a substantial threat to the economies of those nations. Not least is the concern about the uneven playing field on which reciprocity is being negotiated. There has been little coverage of the subject in the UK press, but it has deeply concerned the press and people in the developing world.
	The Prime Minister is rightly focusing on Africa as the lead theme for Britain's G8 presidency, so it seems somewhat strange for us to be making life more difficult for Africa elsewhere. It is simply not acceptable to talk up the EU's commitment to a bilateral agreement at the World Trade Organisation while simultaneously shopping around for what might be more advantageous bilateral deals.
	The Government, when they are pressed on these economic partnership agreements, say, We understand that there are problems here, so perhaps we can come up with some alternatives. One suggestion that officials have come up with, which I think Ministers are toying with, is a suggestion for a generalised system of preferences, but as yet there has been very little discussion of the limits of such systems. It is probable that it will prove impossible to offer all developing countries Everything but Arms access, but what steps are the Government taking to ensure that a viable alternative with at least as good access is available to ACP states that do not wish to pursue an economic partnership agreement?
	When the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), responded during the recent debate on the Caribbean, he said:
	When I was in Brussels this week, I received assurance that the EU does not by any means expect full reciprocity. We have received continual assurances from the EU that it sees EPA as tools for development . . . The current EPA negotiations are focused on regional integration. For that reason alonealthough there are othersI do not think that we should delay the start of negotiations. They need to continue in tandem with the Doha . . . negotiations.[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 2 December 2004; Vol. 428, c. 41WH.]
	Hearing that, hon. Members could be excused for gaining the impression that, apart from a few tweaks, all is well in trade policy, yet officials were very much darker just 10 days earlier. On 30 November, they told the International Development Committee:
	I think probably the most worrying area is the fiscal one: that if the ACP or indeed the WTO negotiations forced the ACP, particularly African countries, to reduce their tariffs, they would have a huge problem in terms of their revenue. The World Bank has come up with some figures and it looks extremely grave from their evidence where they have estimated that offering the EU duty free access would incur losses amounting to one per cent of GDP and seven to ten per cent of Government revenue for sub-Saharan Africa. Obviously, therefore, you need to pace this and you need assistance for substantial fiscal reform. That is not the only area, obviously.
	The official then went on to explain this other area of real concern. She said that
	the UK as you know is very keen to see conditionality attached to EDF in terms of good governance and properly targeted development, but we certainly would not want to see any conditionality attached to implementing trade reforms. Basically, the work needs to be done, we need a dialogue with the Commission, but obviously it would be helpful if the Committee and others can be saying, do not let us rob Peter to pay Paul.
	I entirely agree with that.
	The Government have said that next year Africa will be very important, and I am quite sure that we shall hear a lot from the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others at the beginning of the year about the importance of the G8, the importance of the Commission for Africa, and the importance of Britain's presidency of the European Union in the last six months of next year to take forward their agenda on Africa. However, I ask the Minister for Europe to relay to the Secretary of state for Trade and Industry and others in the Government that if they get the Cotonou negotiations wrong the Commission for Africa will produce no more than hollow words because all it will mean is that the EU will make life in terms of trade, which is, of course, crucial to every developing country, much more difficult than at present in those developing countries.
	I had hoped that we would have an opportunity to debate trade policy on its ownwe clearly will not but that is an important part of EU policy, where the Commission largely has competence and the Government need to ensure that the Commission is responding to what I believe is a very considerable consensus in this country that, next year, we should seek to make poverty history, but we will not make poverty history if we do not get the Cotonou trade negotiations right.

Huw Irranca-Davies: It gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). I was particularly taken with his analogy of this being a group therapy session, something like Europeans Anonymous, but I am not sure in which role that casts you, Mr. Deputy Speakerperhaps the group therapist, looking on sagely as we expound our problems and difficulties.
	This has been an intelligent and wide-ranging debate, even though I have marked differences of opinion with some of the comments that have been made. I regard myself as coming from the greatest little European country that existsof course, I am talking about Walesand it is further to travel to Wales than to France. I am great a pro-Welshman and a great pro-Britisher as well. I am also a strong pro-European, but I share some of the frustrations expressed on the Floor of the House today.
	One problem is how we get out and tell people in Ogmore, Caerphilly or Luton that this is a great project and that the steam has not gone out of it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) said earlier, what is the great new dream that we put in front of people? Where is the project going? How do we get youngsters very much involved?
	Yesterday evening, I attended a colleague MP's event where young peoplenew, young aspirant voterswere invited to pin up their thoughts about crime, Europe and international development on stick-it notes on a board. It was noticeable that few comments on Europe and the EU were pinned up, but one said, I don't think they're doing a very good job in Europe, but I don't know a lot about it either. That is a major problem. How do we communicate not only the difficulties, but the successes and strengths? I am a frustrated pro-European and I am here today in this group therapy session not only to tell people about those problems, but to say what we should perhaps be doing.
	Being at the heart of Europe is of direct benefit to Britain. Despite some articulate conversation today, some of what has been said is outdated, Eurosceptic jingoismnot all of it, but there has been an element of that. We need to look at the facts. I stress that we need to look at the European initiatives that create and safeguard jobs across the country. We live on an islandthat fact can be regarded as something of a traditional difficulty and as a great strength of oursbut we are also an island that is part of Europe.

Kelvin Hopkins: I hope that my hon. Friend's reference to jingoism was not directed towards the left. We have had international meetings with people from France, Sweden, Denmark, Spain and elsewhere this year. We are an international movement of the left, fighting for a socialist Europe.

Huw Irranca-Davies: One aspect of my humble contribution with which my hon. Friend will agree will be the stress that I put on the way in which Europe has been of great benefit to workers' rights and protections. That matter is significant to my hon. Friend's constituents, as it is to mine.
	Britain is clearly better off in Europe, and that is not only because of our ability to access to the world's largest single market, with a population that is now more than 450 million, but because we benefit from receiving the lion's share of foreign investment. I know that because my constituency borders the M4 corridor in south Wales. The M4 corridor is a great infrastructure project that has brought investment directly to mid and west Wales.
	The UK is something of a gateway to the vast European market. More than 3 million jobs in 800,000 companies depend on the EU. Some 2 million British workers are employed directly by foreign investors. We are now such an integral part of Europe that eight of our 10 top trading partners are based there. The inter-reliance of countries on exports is significant. We now export more to France than to the 50 countries of the Commonwealth, and four times as much to the EU as to the whole of the US.
	To touch on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) about discussions with international colleagues and the socialist agendaI praise the work of our colleagues on the left in such discussionsthe direct benefits of adopting the European social chapter in 1997 are being felt throughout the country. I challenge anyone who is sceptical about the wider benefits of Europe to examine the facts to find out the differences that European-led initiatives and funding are making throughout the country, especially in Wales and notably in south Wales.
	Despite some scare stories, EU legislation has spearheaded initiatives to drive the economy forward, and it has made British countries able to compete in a global environment. However, to the people of Britain and Walesand workers in OgmoreEU membership means much more than simply free market opportunities for goods and services. It has led to fundamental improvements to working conditions and a minimum level of workplace rights. Those rights, which were voted through with the support of Labour MEPs, include a reduced maximum working week of 48 hours, which has been of particular benefit to families and has had an impact on reducing work-related stress. Further rights coupled with that include entitlements to paid leave and one day off a week. It might seem to Conservative Members that I am offloading something, but if we are talking in terms of group therapy, it is important to offload such information and remind people, especially in the light of much of today's debate, about the good that has been achieved through the EU.
	It is not only full-time workers who have benefited from advances in workers' rights. Some 6 million British citizens, most of whom are women, have benefited from the part-time workers' law, which guarantees them equal rights to paid leave, pensions, maternity rights, access to training and other company perks and benefits. That fundamental change has been driven through in the European Union by Labour MEPs and others. Up to 1.3 million temporary workers have benefited from an EU law that has granted them conditions comparable to those of people on full-time contracts.
	Many advantages have been gained through the EU, yet we do not often hear them covered in such debates or media representations of them. Somehow we prefer to dwell on what is perceived as the ridiculous, the unfortunate, the regrettable and the errors, but we forget the great advances that we have made, not least on workplace protections and rights.
	One aspect is health and safety. British workers have benefited from the greater health and safety protection guaranteed by the EU, which is especially significant when one considers that 500,000 people in western Europe will die as a direct consequence of previous exposure to asbestos. That is of particular importance in my constituency, not because we have a prevalence of asbestos-related disease, but because those in my constituency who were affected looked across the UK to find support groups. They were also anxious to lobby for the protection of workers in future. Although it is already strictly controlled in Britain, the marketing and use of asbestos will be banned throughout the EU from 2005. Asbestos will continue to pose a risk for those working on older buildingselectricians, builders, plumbers and all crafts. That is why Labour MEPs backed a new package of safety and training measures to target workers who will continue to be exposed to asbestos.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting and salient speech, but I hope that he is not suggesting that the Government, regardless of persuasion, would not have passed such measures anyway. Common sense dictates that we protect people from asbestos. I am sure he is aware that at Turner and Newell 40,000 people have lost their pensions because of asbestos claims from America.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I hope that no Government of any persuasion would object to asbestos protection measures. My point is that they were introduced with the vociferous support of Labour MEPs in particular.
	Europe-wide measures such as those are forging a working environment in which workers take precedence over company profits and exploitation, which are being banished from our great continent. We should embrace Europe and the Government's role at the forefront of the European project, not sideline ourselves from what is being achieved in Europe for the people of Britain, the working people of Wales and my constituents. It is time to move on and discover the new visionthe dream that will engage the youth and others in the European project.

Wayne David: Before my hon. Friend moves on to the European vision, will he confirm or dispel the suggestion that the new constitutional treaty will be good for the workers of this country? I believe that will be the case. Does he agree?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I entirely agree. The European constitution is undoubtedly part of the process of reform. I described myself at the beginning of my contribution as a frustrated European. I do not for one moment assume that everything in the EU is perfectfar from it. Many hon. Members in all parts of the House have identified problems of clarity, accountability and fraud. All those diminish confidence in the European Union, but if we focus on the problems to the exclusion of all the achievements, we jeopardise the whole project and the success that can emanate from it.
	The European Union has allocated 1.5 billion in structural funds to Wales in 200506. With matching funding from various sourcespublic, private and voluntarythat brings the total structural funds available to more than 3.2 billion. Under the guidance of WEFOthe Welsh European Funding Officethose funds directly benefit some of the poorest and most ostracised members of our communities, many of them in my constituency. Projects set up with European funding have boosted job prospects for many in south Wales and lifted community morale. There is a direct relationship between the turnaround in communities and community spirit, and the European funding that is going into a great variety of projects. For example, Bridgend Youth Focus, a project set up with European funding, is receiving 2,927,000 to help young people who are most at risk from social exclusion begin to lead valued social and economic roles in their communities. It tackles health, welfare, education and training, and provides personal support programmes. Some of the most vulnerable youngsters benefit directly from our engagement with the European Union.

Graham Brady: The hon. Gentleman is talking about large sums of structural fund money benefiting Wales. Is he suggesting that if the British Government were directly responsible for spending that British taxpayers' money and it was not channelled through the EU, it would not be spent in Wales?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am glad to have received that intervention, as I shall certainly place on record an expression of my confidence that, if the distributor putting such funds towards helping the most vulnerable and ostracised in our society were a Labour Government, that money would indeed go to those communities.
	Other youth support projects have been set up in Porthcawl and the Lynfi valley with European social fund grants. To date, more than 2,000 projects have been approved, totalling more than 1.1 billion over the past few years in my constituency alone, or for those who would prefer it, 1.6 billion.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North said that, whatever replaced the structural funding, we should look to ensure that we still protected such communities. I echo that sentiment. Whatever proposals the Minister or the Treasury make, we should ensure that those funds continue to be diverted to the areas where they are of most use.
	In Bridgend, a rural economy action project was set up with a European grant enabling strategic support to be given to sustainable regeneration of its rural communities. In particular, an intermediate labour market initiative, again boosted by European support, aims to assist the long-term unemployed back to work and is undertaking programmes of work that aim to contribute to the regeneration of the environment and to help and stimulate the growth of new green businesses and social enterprises.
	That use of European funding directly ties in with the Government's overall objectives not only in terms of employment, but of training and skills development. With such projects under way, deprived communities rebuilding themselves and employment prospects rising, people in Ogmore, Wales and across the whole of Britain will want the EU to continue.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his incredible patience in giving way. He will know that I look across the bay from Bridgwater to his constituency. It may interest him to know that the Welsh Development Agency and others have tried to steal businesses from Bridgwater, which is an industrial town, for Wales. He may say that there is nothing wrong with that and that it is merely competition, but my area does not have any European funding at all, while his does. Does he think that that is right?

Huw Irranca-Davies: The only remark with which I take issue is the suggestion that the Welsh Development Agency is stealing investment. It has been singularly successful in attracting investment to Wales. I pay tribute to the work that the WDA has done. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a competitive environment, but the WDA has been singularly successful in attracting investment, as is reflected in my speech. I realise that its success has also meant that other regions have lost out on some occasions. Sometimes we lose out as well.
	With the British presidency of the EU next year, the opportunity to fulfil the Lisbon strategy and make it come to fruition as part of a co-ordinated Europe-wide effort led by Britain should not be missed. Britain is already achieving key indicators set by the Kok report, such as those on employment, and is set to be second only to the Danes, Swedes and Finns in areas such as research and development, child care, science and lifelong learning. Why is it wrong for Britain to lead a European effort to achieve those targets, when it obviously benefits Britain, Europe and all of us to continue to seek reform? This country is succeeding as a leader in the EU whose aim is to lift productivity, employment, opportunity and fairness in an environmentally sustainable economy. That success has been nourished, sustained and safeguarded by membership of the Union, which increasingly looks to us for innovative policies that work and for a Europe that works.
	The accession of Turkey is a great opportunity. That point relates to the core of my speech that the EU is a union of not only open financial markets and so on, but of values, not least of which are human rights. The EU cannot, as one Conservative Member mentioned, simply be a trading association. The EU has a greater role as a propagator of fundamental humanitarian values that all progressive EU nations hold, which is its strength. A European Free Trade Association-style organisation would destroy our progress as a community of nations on environmental safeguards, workers' rights and so much more. A pared down economic and trade club is no substitute for a community of nations with shared valuesthe former knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. The EU, represented by its member states, has beliefs as well as a balance sheet, which is why the accession of Turkey is to be encouraged.
	Despite difficulties such as comparative GDP, their judiciaries and their traditional ties to Russia, countries such as Ukraine should not be ruled out from accession in the distant longer term. I concur with the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) that we should not rule that out, because if their values and aspirations are similar to ours, our great EU group should not rule out membership to Ukraine or others.

Wayne David: My hon. Friend has emphasised the need for the European Council to take a positive decision on beginning negotiations with Turkey. Does he agree that Turkey's progress in a relatively short space of time is remarkable? One reason why that progress has been made is the incentive of the possibility of joining the EU at some time in the future.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I agree entirely. My hon. Friend has great knowledge in this sphere and he has made my point far better than I could have done. The EU is far greater than a pure trading entity, because it spreads and propagates values. Although I am extremely positiveI know that my hon. Friend is also very positive about Turkey's accessionwe should not let up the pressure on Turkey to reform its domestic agenda.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am grateful for the chance to disagree with my hon. Friends, who represent most of south Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) has discussed values, and I have listened carefully to his carefully crafted words. Does he share my view that Turkey cannot accede unless and until it can demonstrate a robust parliamentary democracy and the fulfilment of the Copenhagen criteria, which cannot be diluted?

Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend has made a wise intervention. His position does not differ greatly from that of the Government, which is that we must see that those criteria are being met as part of the rules for accession. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend has thrown me slightly. I understand that hon. Members in the process of group therapy will blank, but I am back on course now. To echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) on enlargement, it is right and proper that we congratulate the Government on the role that they have played at the forefront, sometimes very bravely with opposition from other, more strident voices elsewhere.
	In conclusion, where do we go from here? My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston and the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who is not in his seat but was here for the bulk of the debate, both argued for change, but from very different perspectives. My hon. Friend spoke of the need for a new dream or vision of Europe that would inspire the young not only of 1987 or 1997 but of 2007. She may not have been aware that, as she made those comments, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks was nodding strongly in agreement. I do not know whether that is a cause for great joy or concern.
	We need some new watchwords as we enter a new era with the European Union and address the issue of the European constitution. I suspect that somebody somewhere at the forefront of a marketing company will come up with something really inventive. However, it needs to be based on reform, renewal and reconnection because, despite my unashamed pro-European credentials, I worry as we see from the latest polling figures that we are failing to make the case strongly. That is partly because of our own failure in not singing from the same hymn sheet and not singing loudly enough, and partly because our Government and other Governments need to work much harder to put pressure more strongly on Europeans to go through the process of renewal and reform much more quickly and seriously.
	As I approach the end of this group therapy session, I can honestly say that I feel much better now and that I am sure that I will be back for another session. I hope for continued progress and improvement for myself, for other hon. Members and for the European Union.

William Cash: Having listened to the expressions of the triumph of hope over experience that we have just heard, I should say that I do not wholly negate the views of those who desperately want the European Union to work. The problem is that many of its aspirations, noble as they were in 1945, have been, in fits and starts, gradually subjected to reality. We are now at the crossroadsnot exclusively, by any means, in terms of the constitution.
	The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) mentioned polls. A few weeks ago, ICM carried out a poll for the European Foundation, of which I happen to be chairman. It asked this question:
	Some people say that Britain should renegotiate the existing EU treaties so that they are reduced to trade and association agreements. Do you agree or disagree?
	The results were extremely interesting. They showed that 58 per cent. of the population at large agreed with that proposition. Significantly, as I told the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), 65 per cent. of people in Scotland agreedas did 68 per cent. of 18 to 24-year-olds, which I found exceptionally interesting.
	At the heart of the questions that we have been discussing todayand which I have been trying to address since I entered the House in 1984, for which I make no apologyis the need for reality. We have now reached a point where we are fairly close to it, but it has been a hard slog. There is nothing anti-European about being pro-democracy.
	In his concluding remarks, the hon. Member for Ogmore spoke of the necessityalmost as a justification for the constitutionof combining the legal framework of the progression towards political integration with human rights. There is nothing in the existing treaties, as compared with the convention of Strasbourg, about human rights. Some would argueI do notthat the existing treaties have worked well. I believe that they have not worked well not because of the absence of human rights but for other reasons, which I shall consider shortly.
	I would dispute strongly the idea of human rights being the ultimate justification for the constitution of a community of values. After all, this country produced the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. In many respects, the American constitution was based on the principles that we had enunciated. Jefferson, at the age of 33, had considerable regard in drafting the constitution, which he did himself in only a few months, to the traditions of the British constitutional arrangements. He took the viewI believe, justifiablythat they had gone off key because we relied too much on a constitutional arrangement that was insufficiently democratic.
	The most important human value, right or attributethe word that I preferis democracy. It is the means whereby, through elections, the voters decide how they are to be governed. It enables us to have freedom of speech and debate in the House. The principles in which we believe are entirely based on democracy and its application to the ordinary daily lives of the people whom we have the honour to represent.
	My great quarrel with the European Union is over its continuous progress away from the principles of democracy. I have raised repeatedly with the Foreign Secretary the point, which he conceded to me on 9 September, that in the constitution, primacy lies not with the EU but with Acts of Parliament. If the constitution were passed and the House of Commons choseit is matter of political willto pass legislation that was inconsistent with any previous enactment, which could, and should in my view, include repeal or amendment of the European Communities Act 1972, judges in the British courts would be obliged not to disapply any subsequent Act but to apply it to the constitution. In other words, as I put it in the European Scrutiny Committee the other day, UK voters rule OK.

Wayne David: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that if the European Union were more democratic and the sovereignty of individual nation states enhanced he would not oppose the EU?

William Cash: In a moment, I shall look at the ingredients of the EU's failure to work. After being elected chairman of the Conservative back-bench committee on European affairs with 62 per cent. of the vote in a secret ballotI do not know what the result would have been if it was not secretI was asked in 1990 or 1991 by Lord Hurd of Westwell, who was then Foreign Secretary, to write a paper for the Conservative manifesto committee on the workings of the European Union. It has since been published by Duckworth in Visions of Europe. I am sure that the book is no longer on sale, but the title of my contribution was The European Community: Reality and Making It Work. Despite the considerable attempts over the years to demonise my views, I have only ever believed that a framework of co-operation in EuropeI urge hon. Members to notice that I did not use the word co-ordination, which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) used in her speech, because I do not accept that it is part of the processbetween truly democratic nation states does not promote nationalism but democracy. Those states could co-operate within a framework that benefits everybody in trade, commerce, industry and, as happened in the war, defence alliances.

Gisela Stuart: My colleagues may not thank me, but at the risk of encouraging the hon. Gentleman, I do not understand his accusation that the EU lacks democratic accountability. There are two streams of legitimacythe Council of Ministers, a directly elected assembly of Government representatives, and the European Parliament, which is also directly elected. The public, however, cannot identify where responsibility lies, and are uneasy about the responsibility deficit. There is not a democratic deficit. If there were, we would fight European elections on a pan-European party ticket, but I would not expect the hon. Gentleman to advocate that.

William Cash: I disagree with the hon. Lady. When decisions are made by QMV about governmental matters, as opposed to matters of trade, that creates serious problems for future elections. The acquis communautaire kicks in, and decisions by British voters, who may wish to change a Government because they do not like the laws that they passedI would like to repeal many authoritarian laws passed by this Governmentare subject to decisions that are binding on this country by virtue of the European Communities Act. We might tolerate for that for the time being, but it prevents us from unravelling those unwanted laws at a general election, which is undemocratic. It is not merely an interference but an inhibition and even a prohibition that prevents the people of this country from changing the laws at an election.

Richard Bacon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) is wrong, because legitimacy does not derive from the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament? It derives from consent. If a body has consent it has legitimacy. If it does not, no matter what is written it does not have legitimacy.

William Cash: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution, with which I agree.
	The issue of the general election can be compared with that of the European Court of Justice, for example. If it makes an adjudication in relation to matters that we might want to change, whether under the constitution, or, as I shall explain, with respect to existing treaties, it is then set in concrete, and our judges are obliged to apply the law, as enunciated by the European Court of Justice as the ultimate jurisdiction. That is yet another inhibition, unless, of course, we can change it. My argument, profoundly, is that we can change it, but we must show that we have the political will.
	The arguments that I put forward are not exclusively concerned with the issue of the constitution, to which my party is opposed in principle, I am glad to say. I attempted to set out arguments when I was shadow Attorney-General to demonstrate the necessity of regarding that as a matter of fundamental change requiring a referendum, which I am glad that the Government have also accepted, because of the issue of primacy. It is of the highest political importance that we get this right, which is why I am glad to take part in such a lengthy debate.
	These matters must be set out as clearly as possible. They relate not just to the mechanics of institutional change, but ultimately and fundamentally, to the way in which we are governed, which I have been trying to argue for the past 15 to 20 years. That is not to say that we need to be entirely negative abut the advantages of co-operation, whether in Europe or in other alliances on the international stage. The issue is how it is prescribed and followed through in practice.
	With respect to the question of the United Kingdom and the arrangements for the constitution, before I deal with what the existing treaties contain and why I regard that as a matter to be dealt with nowbefore the general election and not afterwardsI want to touch on whether the European constitution would survive a no vote in any one of the countries.
	It is completely clearI hope that the Minister will not disagreethat if any one member state fails to ratify the treaty, the draft constitution will not go into force. I think that that is accepted on both sides of the House. What follows from that, however, is that the existing treaties will continue to apply, because their repeal is dependent on those provisions that I put to the Prime Minister in Prime Minister's Questions some months agothat all the existing treaties will be revoked, and all the laws and regulations, European Court of Justice rulings and the acquis communautaire will be repealed but reapplied, which is the key point, under the new doctrine of primacy prescribed by article 1(5), or 1(6), of the proposed constitution. If that constitution fails, by definition, the existing treaties continue.
	What that boils down to is that all kinds of permutations are possible as to what may be decided on at that stage. Ireland and Denmark, for example, went for second bites of the cherry. That was disgracefulit was disgraceful that my Government allowed that to happen in the case of Denmark, and I said so at the time. There is a question as to what would emerge, apart from the idea that there would be a rerun of a referendum, which I regard as pretty unthinkable in terms of British democracy and constitutional arrangements. None the less, there would have to be a negotiation between member states that had agreed to go ahead and those that had not.
	That brings me to the problems that I see with regard to the existing treaties that would be left, as it were, on the statute book. Let me give an example. In an intervention, I mentioned the growth and stability pact. As we know, it has been in serious trouble. Some Members may recall that I felt so strongly that it would not work in practice that when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), as Chancellor of the Exchequer, sent a letter to all Members of Parliament saying why he thought it was a good idea, I felt it necessary to send a letter to Conservative Members saying why I thought not just that it was not a good idea, but that it would not work.
	As it turns out, those of us who thought that the growth and stability pact was an unworkable proposition have been proved right. Analysis from the university of Bonn states unequivocally that the main effect of the pact has been to encourage countries to cheat by misreporting their deficits. When I put that to the Foreign Secretary in an intervention he did not reply, but the reality is that countries are cheating, which has caused many of the difficulties between Germany and Italy, for example.
	According to Mr. Wolfgang Munchau in the Financial Times of 13 December, one important reason for the fact that
	the stability pact is flawed in principle and not just in practice
	is that
	the euro was built on mistrust: the Germans, in particular, mistrusted the Italians. Another more respectable reason was the desire to emulate the experience of the US during the 1990s.
	I happened to attend a bankers' conference in Frankfurt, and heard Chancellor Kohl express very similar views all of 10 years ago. The growth and stability pact goes to the heart of the way in which the European economy is supposed to work: that is the key point. It is not just any pact; it is a deal that was struck in an attempt to bring a degree of stability to the European economy. Why is the European economy not working under the existing treaties? Why do we have low growth and high unemployment? The short answer isalthough I am sure that the Minister for Europe does not want to hear all thisthat there is no reason other than the fact that the pact cannot work.
	The Minister for Europe is engaged in his own peculiar Houdini trick. He knows how unpopular is the European project that he has hammered so stridently for the last 10 years, and he knows that it is not working. He knows that it does not even appeal to his own constituents. So he is shifting his ground in a shifty manner, and putting out statements criticising even his own Government for the basis on which they arrived at the completely false conclusion that the euro was capable of working and ought to be applied in the United Kingdom. The bottom line is that it does not work.
	We have heard today about Wim Kok's report, which is only a few weeks old and which I raised with the Prime Minister the other day. It has been acknowledged by members of the GovernmentI must say in all fairnessthat it is not working. Some have attempted to put up a fairly good defence, but the fact is that Wim Kok's report makes clear that the European economy is not working. It is not working because of the intrinsic faults in the thinking behind the social agendathe hon. Member for Ogmore promoted that agenda as an advantagewhich is driving economies such as Germany's mad.
	Massive over-regulation is inhibiting the growth of the economies of individual member states. A recent edition of The Business pointed out that according to a European Commission report, even the Commission believes that over-regulation is costing European business 1 trillion a year. David Arculus, chairman of the Prime Minister's own Better Regulation Task Force, submitted a report to the Prime Minister saying that over-regulation is costing the British economy 100 billion a year. According to the British Chambers of Commerce, in the past few years certain directives, many of which come from the European Union, have cost the economy 30 billion.
	The fact is that it is possible to reform the system, but it is not being reformed. It is no good the Minister for Europe, the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife talking about the virtues of the system, or the hon. Member for Ogmore talking about common values. Why should we respect common values if they are creating social tensions, high unemployment and low growth? There is a direct correlation between the treaties' provisions and the proposals for economic governance. As even some in the Minister's own party and many of the unions know perfectly well, schools, hospitals and other elements of the domestic economy cannot get the public expenditure that they want because of the constraints imposed by the convergence criteria laid down under the Maastricht treaty.
	I remember saying during the Maastricht treaty debates that I never thought the day would come when I had to criticise my own Government for deliberately creating unemployment. There are Conservative Members who will not agree with that line of argument, and I am not suggesting that we should have a free-for-all on public expenditure. What I am saying is that we can decide on these issues for ourselves in this place. The problem that the Government and Labour Members face is that the inhibitions that are not only putting strain on the economy but causing strains within the Labour party are the consequence of applying artificial criteria that originate in Europe. Instead, we should be making these fundamental decisions for ourselves.
	I come to our relationship with the United States. The entire existing treaty framework, including the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties, creates serious problems for our relationship with other countries. It is perfectly obvious that compared with the United States, European countries have politically diverse opinions on all aspects of international life, such as free trade, NATO and how to organise economies. It cannot be disputed, for example, that the French are far more protectionist and sceptical about NATO, and that they organise their economy in a more statist fashion.
	The French are also espousing the creation of a European superpower; indeed, President Chirac openly called for that just before his state visit. I pointed that out to the Prime Minister and asked him how he is going to manage to ride two horses at the same time, given that he wants not only an EU superpower but a relationship with the United States. These are absurd foreign policy differences not merely of opinion, but of principle. Intrinsic to this part of my thoughts is the need for a democratic principle to be placed above all others.
	In the United States there is a deeply rooted community of thinking about how democracies should workfor example, through the operation of congressional committees, the working of the economy and the operation of Congress. After all, the European Union, for reasons already given, falls short and has fallen short over the last 100 years. Let us cast our minds back and look at that situation. Let us also remember that it is the United Kingdom and the United States that fought for the liberty on which many of the principles that Europeans encourage us to espouse are based. It is not very good, if I may say so, for people to criticise the UK in respect of its attitudes towards Europe; we should have regard to the fact that people such as my own father were killed in the last war fighting for those very freedoms.

Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is anxious about protectionism, so how would he characterise the Bush Administration's attitude towards steel in Ohio, farming in the mid-west and Boeing?

William Cash: Very simply, with respect to the steel issue, America had to go through a process, as we did in the UKsome would argue, though I think wrongly in this instance, that it also applies to coalof restructuring. America has not dealt with the problems that it should have dealt with to restructure the economy and make it more competitive. The same applies to agriculture in the mid-west. I doubt whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would put forward the common agricultural policy as a paragon of virtue compared with[Interruption.] I assume that he accepts that restructuring and change are necessary to accommodate the requirements of the modern world.
	I do not think that the Americans are, by nature, protectionist, but I know that the French are. I am not just talking about modern French economics and politics. Those of us who have studied French history know that we need look only to the times of Colbert to realise that there is an intrinsic protectionist and statist attitudeRichelieu, Colbert and so forththat lies at the very core of the way in which the French think. That does not mean that we have to think any less of them for that. I happen to love France and I spend as much time as I can there. I speak French, but that does not mean that I have to agree that the French economic philosophy is better than that of Adam Smith, for example, which I happen to think is far preferable.

Andrew MacKinlay: A member of the flat earth society!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

William Cash: So many matters have been mentioned. For example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) quite rightly stated that taxation is coming through the back door. Dealing with immigration is a problem under the Amsterdam treaty, even without mentioning what the present Government have done. Under that treaty, which I have to say we renegotiated, there was an agreement that the veto would be lifted in the five years following its coming into effectApril this year, I believe. That is one of the reasons why we have so many difficulties to cope with already.
	Dealing with fraud is another problem. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) made some strong points about that, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks. I believe that fraud is another matter that could be dealt with in this House. Various Conservative Members lost the party Whip during a debate on the Finance Bill in, I think, 1994, although I was not among them on that occasion. We nearly defeated the Government on the day in question, as that Government well knew. I stipulated in the debate that questions relating to fraud should be dealt with by adjusting our procedure to ensure that the Public Accounts Committee could keep an eye on how money is spent here. I urge the Minister for Europe to adopt that proposition.
	The Minister for Europe intervened on a Conservative Member earlier and got quite heated about fraud. There is a simple answer to the problem, however, and I believe that the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee agree with me. If we took advantage of the opportunities available to us, and if the Government were to agree, we could get a handle on how European money is spent in the UK. Our PAC, National Audit Office and Comptroller and Auditor General are superb, and we would be able to hold proper investigations into how that money is spent. That would be a useful and practical way to try and solve the problem of fraud.
	What is the way forward? I wish that the BBC and other media organisations could bring themselves to be less partial in their approach to these matters. I am engaged in a very extensive correspondence with the BBC director-general, and a few days ago received a letter that was four and a half pages long. I shall not go into detail, but it appears that some progress is being made.
	A committee is being set up under Lord Wilson of Dinton to look into the question of pro-EU bias in the BBC, and a report will appear in due course. I trust that we will make some progress on that front. Experience has taught me not to be over-optimistic, but the matter is terribly important. The BBC is often the main source of information about what is going on in the EU. I told the director-general in one of my letters that I do not argue for one side of the debate by any means, but that the BBC charter requires matters of public policy to be presented in an even-handed fashion.
	The Gilligan affair demonstrated some of the corporation's deficiencies in that respect and some very good lessons were clearly learned. However, we have the BBC charter on the one hand and the producer guidelines on the other. Those guidelines are, and must remain, subsidiary to the charter, as they arise from its application. We must press for those two factors to be combined with the agreement attached to the charter by which the BBC governors undertake to ensure proper impartiality.
	Finally, where do we go from here? I think that the European constitution is dead in the water. I do not believe that it has a cat in hell's chance of being approved by the British people. I have said why I believe that the existing treaties do not work in various respects, but there are many others. Foreign policy and defence are other matters that could be looked at butas I have said in articles and other presentationswe must know what the alternative is. I say that with great respect to those other Conservative Members who have spoken, including my hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
	It is not good enough for us to say that we do not want a constitution in principle and then expect the British people to vote against it. I believe that the British people have already discounted that possibility from the political market place, as they did our proposals for a referendum on the euro in 1997. As the ICM poll with which I began my remarks showed, the people of this country want to return to something along the lines of EFTA. The new arrangement may not be a precise replica of that, but it will be very close.
	I urge my colleagues on the Front Bench and in the Government to accept that we cannot proceed without a plan B, which has to be a renegotiation of the existing treaties. Renegotiation has been mentioned, but it cannot be confined only to foreign aid, fishing, the social chapter and, perhaps, the common agricultural policy. It must go much deeper and address the political structure of Europe; the democracy question that I raised earlier; how we relate to the European Court of Justice, on which the House of Lords produced an important report recently; and how we co-operate, not co-ordinate, with other member states. In fact, as I have often tried to express it, we say yes to European trade, but no to European government.
	We must look at how we would be able to renegotiate those treaties. The Prime Minister talked to the Leader of the Opposition the other day and said that renegotiation was all for the birds. He asked how we would get the agreement of 24 other countries. The answer is that it might be difficult, but I predictand some of my past suggestions have not been entirely wrongthat when we set a course with the political will to achieve constructive objectives in the interests of our own voters and those in other member states, and they see that the present set-up is not working, they will like what we offer. We will offer a renegotiation of the treaties combined with the serious and determined threat of withdrawal, because otherwise no one would take any notice. When the political will of Britain is set out on that negotiating table and we mean what we saywe must do sopeople will start to listen and they will act accordingly.
	The tectonic plates of Europe are already moving. The tectonic plates underneath the Minister for Europe have moved in the past few weeks. The renegotiation is already on the agenda. I know that my colleagues on the Front Bench are grappling with how far down the road they can go. I believe that they are not going far enoughthey have not even begun to touch second base. They got to first base by saying that we will renegotiate in principle on fisheries. In the interests of Europe, of this country and of the Conservative party, it is essential that we have a properly formulated policy of renegotiation, combined with the threat of withdrawal, with the aim of associated status and free trade. And we must mean it.

Andrew MacKinlay: I apologise to House for not being in my place for the early part of the debate, but I was involved in other parliamentary business.
	The subject matter for the debate is drawn widely. Because it is European affairs does not exclusively mean the European Union. Nor is there a specific motion before us that demands action. A good friend of mine gave me some wise counsel earlier this afternoon, saying that Mr. Speaker expects hon. Members to refer to contributions made during the debate. I intend to do so, both in respect of a comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) and of the lengthy but interesting speech by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).
	You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from your long time in the Chair, that Whips on both sides occasionally visit the Tea Room to say, The House is about to collapse. Can you come and do 10 minutes? I always let rip at them, because I believe that that insults me and the House. However, whenas on this occasionI decide that I would like to make a contribution, it apparently does not go down too well with those colleagues who occupy certain areas of the Treasury Bench.

Denis MacShane: Not me.

Andrew MacKinlay: Not my hon. Friend, who is an outstanding Minister for Europe and one of the longest serving of the many Ministers for Europe in the Government. I hope that my commendation does not put his job in jeopardy.
	Everyone acknowledges that the hon. Member for Stone feels strongly and passionately about Europe, but it was deeply depressing to listen to his speech because he seems to lack a vision of what Europe could become and he does not see what has already been achieved. In 1992, when I entered the House, the Gracious Speech referred to the possibility of enlarging the EU. In my maiden speech, I spoke of my hope that Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic would be able to join both the European Community and NATO, so it was profoundly moving for me and, more important, for many others when on 1 May those countries entered the European Union. For them, in many ways, it was the culmination of world war twoa long journey from 1 September 1939 to 1 May 2004, when they finally achieved true independence in the EU. We should take great pride in that.
	When the history of our time is written, our Prime Minister will be given credit for two important things: his diligence and perseverance on Ireland and his vision for the European Union, with which I am proud to be associated because it will be one of his lasting legacies. Opposition Members who constantly disparage the EU should pause to think. They should remember that we are not the only members of the EU; we are not alone in following the rules, regulations and the acquisso do 24 others. It is mutual; there is shared sovereignty.
	Above all else, the beauty of the EU is that it has become a vehicle for the minimisation and resolution of conflict. People aspire to reach and achieve the Copenhagen criteria, and adjust accordingly. That adjustment is often painful and difficult; for example, the Baltic states had to ignore the scars of 30 years of Soviet occupation and come to an accommodation with their Russian minorities. It is to their credit that they did so. Those are great achievements.
	It is worth looking at recent history. I have a passion for world war one. A student once asked whether it had affected my view of politics. I replied, No, not at all, but on reflection I decided that perhaps I was wrong, because standing at Tyne Cot cemetery on the Ypres salient or at Langemark, the German cemetery in Flanders, one cannot help but be profoundly moved. We realise how small a village western Europe was and how much pain and trauma it suffered for hundreds of years. The European Union has resolved many conflicts.
	The hon. Member for Stone is extremely proud of his late, gallant father and his contribution to the defence of democracy in world war two and I acknowledge that. However, as he went on to traduce the Republic of France, I remind him that in the early summer of 1940 Winston Churchill offered the French Government an indissoluble union. Things have moved on, but I mention that fact because Winston Churchill recognised that the future interests of the United Kingdom and the Republic of France were indivisible and that we had to move forward with common purpose. It is important to bear it in mind that a man of some vision recognised that although France had a republican system and Britain a monarchist system, and although there was a history of conflict, those two great countries, separated by a small channel, needed to work together.

William Cash: Very simply, I would recommend that the hon. Gentleman read the biography of Churchill by Roy Jenkins. About 10 pages are devoted to this one question, as a result of which Roy Jenkins concluded that Churchill's position had moved very substantially indeed by the time he became Prime Minister. He said, associated but not absorbed.

Andrew MacKinlay: There has been no absorption at all, and it is absurd to suggest, as the hon. Gentleman doeshe goes on and on and on, like a Duracell batterythat somehow there is this absorption. He cannot bring himself to give any accolade to the European Union for its achievements, yet it clearly has been the source of great conflict resolution and it is the hope of Europe.
	Sometimes we are asked by constituents, Why are you interested in Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia? These are faraway countries. It is our European backyard, and not only have we suffered conflicts in the past decade in that region but there is the potential in some areas for them to flare up again. I think that all Members share the view that we need to do everything we can to avoid future conflict in our backyardin the Balkans. Even if we cannot be persuadedI think most people areof the need to do it for humanitarian reasons, we need to do so out of naked self-interest, because when there is conflict in south-eastern Europe all of us will have the traditional problems of refugees, asylum seeking, the great burdens that exist and the heartache that we have to deal with in our surgeries and so on.
	We now need to get the European Union, with all its energies, offering the carrot to Serbia and Montenegro and to the people of Kosovo that their future can be in the European Union, and the future of the European Union will of course mean that many of the causes of conflict will be at least diminished. The very fact that people can live in one community and work in anotherthe free mobility of labourin what was the former Yugoslavia is itself one of the great resolvers of conflict.
	I hope that the Government will redouble their efforts through all the international agencies and through the European Union to do what they can not just to persuade the states of the former Yugoslavia to comply with the international tribunal, which clearly is a precondition of EU entry negotiations, but to make it clear again and again that if there is compliance there is the prospect of being able to join other countries that have now acceded from the former Yugoslavia into this European family.
	I also want to say to the Minister, as we are talking about European affairs, that all those in the House will be shocked by the limitations on democratic campaigning in Ukraine. I think that there has been insufficient interest by the European Union, and to some extent by the British Foreign Office, in that region in recent years. The Minister looks a bit shocked, but I have raised the subject of Ukraine and Belarus in the Foreign Affairs Committee on a number of occasions. The response has been that these are faraway countries with which we should not be primarily occupied. If the Minister thinks that is wrong, I would love him to amplify on the point.
	The House is united in its concern about the lack of democracy in Ukraine, but we treat it differently from Belarus. I do not think that there has been a qualitative difference between the regime in Belarus and that which has existed hitherto in Ukraine, and I think that we need to have a fresh approach on Belarus. It has 10 million people. It is very close to Poland. It could be absorbed into the European Union, if only there was a change of regime. I think that the cold freeze in which the European Union has put Belarus is not the best tactic.

Menzies Campbell: Has the hon. Gentleman analysed why that so-called cold freeze might have arisen? Might we have been unduly sensitive to the interests of Mr. Putin and Russia?

Andrew MacKinlay: I think that could very well be so, but I also think that sometimes we do not see the inconsistencies in our approach. The failure of democracy in Ukraine is not dissimilar from the situation in Belarus, but we have been much more tolerant of Ukraine and President Kuchma, which is wrong. Our tactics in relation to both those countries should be reassessed.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) spoke about Turkey's accession, and I think that I am in a minority of one in the Chamber because I am very unhappy about the present course. I do not oppose Turkey or, indeed, any other country joining the EU. In fact, in the very long term, we should allow countries that are strictly not in Europe to join if they meet the criteria. Hawaii is clearly not part of the continent of America, and I cannot understand why places such as Kyrgyzstan should not aspire to join if they so wish in years to come.
	Turkey has two problems, which Her Majesty's Government choose to ignore. First, it is not yet a robust parliamentary democracy. There is a long way to go before it can demonstrate that it reaches anywhere near the Copenhagen criteria, but even if it does, we must have regard for scale. It is a country of approximately 80 million people, but Turkey does not know exactly how many people it has in its population. The nature of records and censuses is much more limited in that country. It also has common borders with Armenia, Syria, Iran and Iraq. That is a serious problem for us all, because even if Turkey met the Copenhagen criteria, its geography is extremely difficult in terms of commercial security and combating terrorism, given the need to police those vast expanses of border.
	Of course, such problems could be overcome in time, but that will not be easily achieved in the next decade. That will leave us vulnerable to all the problems of people smuggling, drug trafficking and threats from terrorism. When Estonia and Poland acceded to the EU, we rightly stipulated that they must have good, robust national boundariesthey are also our EU boundariesand I do not believe that that can be achieved in the foreseeable future in relation to Turkey's boundaries, given all the countries to which I have referred.

John Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way during his very impressive speech. On the other side of the account, will he bear in mind the fact that Turkey has made a worthy contribution to NATO for a number of years?

Andrew MacKinlay: Yes, of course. Turkey has made such a contribution. That is a matter of fact, but it is also a reason why the United States is interfering in European affairs, doing all it can to put leverage on the United Kingdom Government and other EU Governments to admit Turkey before it has reached the Copenhagen criteria, and we cannot ignore a matter of geography. When someone seeks to join a club of which any hon. Member might be a member, irrespective of whether we like him or herthe person may have great appeal in many respectsit is legitimate that other criteria often must be taken into account. One of the problems is Turkey's geographical situation, the scale of its landmass and the fact that we would have difficulties with many of the countries that it borders, and we are rushing ahead without thinking through the consequences.
	We must not ignore the fact that, at present, Turkey occupies some EU territory. I am sympathetic to some of the history of the Turkish minority in Cyprus and I am not saying that the Turkish army should withdraw this weekend, but we cannot have serious negotiations while a foreign power is occupying our EU territory.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend is making very impressive points. I think that he referred in passing to Kurdistan, which does not technically exist at the moment and I understand that Turkey would resist the establishment of a Kurdish state, although many hon. Members would think the creation of such a state beneficial and appropriate. Will he say whether the acceptance of a Kurdish state would be part of his conditions for Turkey joining the EU?

Andrew MacKinlay: I believe in national self-determination, which goes back to Wilson's 14 points. In my view, that should always be our objective, but we are constrained by other treaties and by the realities of history, and so on. However, when national entities exist, every attempt should be made to try to accommodate nationalities in political structures. That could lead to the growth of federalisation in the region and a place in which the Kurdish people may feel that they have a political identity. It is not for me to redraw the map this afternoon, but our foreign policy should be sensitive to national self-determination and try to find ways of reflecting that in state structures and the European Union. The European Union is important because it has developed the policy of a Europe of the regions. One factor that has driven Poland and even the United Kingdom to have local legislatures is the fact that the EU works in such ways. The Kurdish nationality could well be accommodated.
	It is time that we talked up the European Union. I do not lie awake at night worrying about the treaty itself. It might be defeated in the referendum, but I shall campaign with vigour because it is a totem of the concept and movement of Europe, about which I feel passionately, as I hope I have demonstrated. If the treaty were to go down, as the hon. Member for Stone indicated, we will still have the existing arrangements, which work. I am also keen for compromise and accommodation. The European Union should be proclaimed by Labour Membersand, I hope, Opposition Membersas a great achievement.
	The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), who is sitting on the Conservative Front Bench, has been kind enough to nod on a couple of occasions, which I took as an indication that he might agree with me. I hate to spoil that, but I must say something to Conservative MembersI do so with the utmost charity. Do they remember that in the weeks before Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and other countries came into the European Union, the press, bolstered by Conservative Members, tried to indicate that half of Poland would be in London by the following weekend? They said that we would not be able to move for Poles, but that has not happened. We have a lot of attractive, exciting and intelligent young men and women from the accession countries in London, which I welcome, but that has not presented one problem whatsoever. We in the United Kingdom will benefit greatly, both immediately and in the long term, from the fact that our Prime Minister had the bold courage to say, I'm not going to have a transitional period on this. They can come. I am proud of him.

Graham Brady: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) was kind enough to say that I nodded at one or two points in his speech, but he did not say which ones. I am happy to say that I agreed with some of what he said. I should point out that in the past few weeks, Caf Lech has opened at the end of my road in Altrincham. Although I have not yet had the opportunity to visit the establishment, it is welcome as the first Polish restaurant in Altrincham. I am sure that it will be a splendid institution.
	We have had a good-natured and honest debate in which we heard several excellent and thought-provoking contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) accused the Minister for Europe of shifting his position and attacking the euro, but he missed the real beauty of the Minister's position. In only the past few days, the Minister has attacked the Chancellor for being anti-European Union, while himself denouncing the euro as an economic irrelevance. He is managing to take both sides simultaneously, which is a marvellous achievement.
	My hon. Friend sensibly advocated including EU expenditure in the UK in the remit of the Public Accounts Committee. He urged the Conservative party to go beyond the powers that we have set out to bring back from Brusselsthe common fisheries policy, the social chapter and elements of EU aid. I urge him to understand that we will go further than that. We have said that the most important thing of all is establishing the principle that powers can be returned, and that the EU must no longer be a one-way street or a conveyor belt moving only towards Brussels. Once we have established that principle, I hope that my hon. Friend will realise that it is an important change and that, instead of movement in only one direction, there can be flexibility, not just for the UK, but for other member states as well. The Dutch, for example, have expressed their views about parts of the common agricultural policy and other aspects of what the EU does.
	The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) spoke tellingly about the damage that has been done to the economies of the eurozone countries. He also spoke about Turkish membership. In response to an intervention, he struggled to think of anything positive about Europe, except for his holidays and the wine.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) made a strong case that what we do not need in the House on the subject of Europe is group therapy. Sometimes, perhaps, we do. He made the valid point that what we do need is better debates on European matters, especially on matters on which the EU has exclusive competence. He stressed the importance of a level playing field for the developing world in matters of trade policy.
	The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) described himself as a frustrated pro-European and then listed a large number of employment and health and safety laws that could have been implemented by a British Government without EU legislation. He went on to speak about structural fund projects which, he said in response to my intervention, he believed would be funded by the Government if the EU were not doing so.

Gisela Stuart: By a Labour Government.

Graham Brady: Indeed. The hon. Member for Ogmore believes that the EU has made no difference to funding for his constituents.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) pointed tellingly to the inaccuracies of the Foreign Office's own guide to the European Union. As he pointed out, there are some gross discrepancies between what is in the guide and what is plain to see in the treaty.
	The debate was opened in magnificent style by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the shadow Foreign Secretary, who rightly highlighted the apparent disappearance of the EU constitution and the Government's pathetic inability to introduce their own Bill on the EU constitution. We await the Bill, which we will happily deal with when it is available. We are deeply frustrated, as no doubt is the hon. Member for Ogmore, that we do not have the opportunity to debate the matter, which the Government apparently believe is of great importance for the United Kingdom.
	The Foreign Secretary spoke about the Government's determination to keep the size of the budget limited to 1 per cent. of gross domestic product. He admitted that there may be some discussion of own resources at the weekend and said that there would be a veto on any proposed change to the rebate. That is welcome. He refused to accept that questions regarding a common foreign policy and the activities of the high representative of the EU should be answered by the Department in this country. I stress to the Minister that if the Government are committed to a common foreign policy for the EU, they must at the very least recognise the right of hon. Members in this place to ask questions about their policy and to expect answers. The Foreign Secretary went on to speak about the progress that we expect to be made with regard to the opening of accession talks for Turkey.
	The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) spoke of his extreme disappointment at the lack of legislation for the constitution. He approaches the matter from a different standpoint from mine, but I commend him for his honesty in making clear his party's open commitment to greater political and economic integration in Europe. We do not share that commitment and it is not popular with the public, but we are delighted that he is so open.
	We had hoped that Ministers would clarify the Government's policy on European affairs in advance of the events later in the week. Perhaps the Minister will still do so in his closing remarks. It is particularly important at a time when the Government's EU policy is being gradually deconstructed by the Minister for Europe and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is becoming increasingly difficult to know exactly where the Government are facing.
	In recent weeks, we have seen the report from the royal commission on environmental pollution, which showed the abject failure of the common fisheries policy. We have also had confirmation from the Minister for Europe that the only fish stock that seems to be increasing at the moment is the red herrings found swimming in the vicinity of No. 11 Downing street. We have already been treated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes to accounts of the Minister's desire to leave the common agricultural policy, his view that the euro is an economic irrelevance and his claim to have persuaded the Foreign Secretary of the case for a referendum. I cannot quote the exact words in the interview that appeared in the New Statesman on 13 December on page 37, but I am sure that many others will go to the Library to look them up.

Kelvin Hopkins: Can the hon. Gentleman give us the full quotation?

Graham Brady: I cannot give the full quotation, but the Minister said:
	I turned to Jack and said, 'Jack, we're'
	blank
	'We've got to give a referendum. I don't think we can hold out.'
	There was no counter-push, and I do not remember a single statement from a pro-European saying that we should not have a referendum. It may be helpful if the Minister can indicate whether that conversation happened, or whether, like his telephone conversation with the King of Spain, it was merely a figment of his own fevered imagination.
	The question of EU resources is one of the matters that will arise at the Council meeting. We know from Commission President Mr. Barroso's statement of strategic objectives that
	We must back our ambition with the necessary financial resources at a European and national level. We will not be a true Union without a vigorous cohesion policy.
	There is a clear conflict between the Government's position and that of the Commission. The Commission's ambition for a vigorous cohesion policy implies an increase in resources. What we need to know is where the Government really stand on this wider policy, which is one of the Commission's principal objectives for the forthcoming Council meeting.
	In looking at the real priorities for the EU and its future development, a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the Lisbon agenda. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) spoke very eloquently about the big forces that are at work in shaping the future of Europe and the worlddemographic and economic trends that, as he said, are not being addressed by the EU and are not on the Council agenda for this week. He described a state of paralysis, but graciously accepted a correction from the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), who made it clear that it was worse than paralysis and that there is a movement in the wrong direction, rather than no movement at all.
	We have also heard a great deal about EU enlargement, which will occupy much of the agenda for the Council meeting. I hope that the Minister can answer some questions about Turkey's possible accession to the EU. Does he agree that the accession negotiations may be a long process, perhaps taking more than 10 years? Can he throw some light on the report in yesterday's edition of The Guardian that the Prime Minister has proposed some Turkish delights to soften opposition to Turkey's accession in some European countries? Would the Government find it acceptable if the beginning of accession talks was delayed until the second half of next year? Is it true that the Government are already trying to renegotiate the constitution to limit Turkey's potential voting weight? Are the Government ready to agree to a clause ensuring that accession negotiations with Turkey need not necessarily end in its membership? Would not the latter be a cruel blow to Turkish hopes after the Government have built up its expectation of joining?
	Will the Minister also tell us how he views Romania's accession? We very much hope that Romania can join in 2007, but can he tell us whether he is satisfied that it has done enough to tackle corruption and problems with the integrity of the political and judicial processes?
	Incidentally, yesterday in Foreign Office questions, the Minister gave me an undertaking that he would consider my request to cover the expenses of British election monitors in Ukraine. Will he tell the House whether he has yet reached a conclusion and whether the Government will rapidly implement such expenses payments?

Denis MacShane: I will pay for the hon. Gentleman to go.

Graham Brady: That is a kind offer, but I made it clear yesterdayadmittedly from a sedentary positionthat I will go if the Minister will come. I suspect that he has plans for Boxing day too.
	The Lisbon agenda is of central importance to Europe's future economic competitiveness. Some hon. Members have suggested that everything in the garden is rosy. For example, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) suggested that we are ahead of schedule on the Lisbon agenda and that things could not be going better. However, former Commissioner Bolkestein said that the Lisbon agenda may not happen given current progressas he put it, Not now, not ever. That is a counsel of despair from somebody who is close to the process.
	Yesterday, the new President of the Commission, Mr. Barroso, said this about the Lisbon agenda:
	For the time being, it may look too much as a catalogue of worthy aims. The Commission wants to reshape it and transform it into a road map for prosperity, identifying clear objectives and a demanding calendar.
	However, the objectives were set out years ago. We are supposed to have reached the halfway point, yet little progress has been made.
	Turning to the priorities for the European Council meeting, we have heard a good deal today about fraud, corruption and hopeless accounting procedures in European Union institutions. The European Court of Auditors has refused to sign off the accounts for the 10th year running. The former chief accounting officer of the EU, Marta Andreasen, has been referred to in the debate, and she has described the problem lucidly. I shall quote from her article in The Times on 6 December, which said:
	In 2002 I was appointed chief accountant to the European Commission to helpas I then believedto reform the inadequate systems and stamp out fraud. I drew attention to those inadequacies; I refused to sign accounts that I believed unreliable; for two years I was suspended from my job, obliged to live in Brussels yet forbidden to enter any EU building; and in October I was dismissed, the charge against me being disloyalty, a decision against which I am appealing.
	But I do not believe that I was disloyal to draw attention to the failures that leave the EU's budget completely vulnerable to fraud and error and to propose urgent changes. The National Audit Office found that in 2002 alone there were 10,000 examples of possible fraud in the EU's accounts. For nine consecutive years the EU court of auditors has refused to sign off the budget. The numbers are huge. The annual EC budget is around 100 billion (65 billion). The auditors cannot clear 95 per cent. of that. We simply cannot tell what is happening to that money; the system does not allow us to say even if the money is well or fraudulently spent.

David Taylor: The OLAF annual report for 200304 states that 1.5 billion of the 100 billion budget is in accounts under investigation. How does the hon. Gentleman account for the disparity between those figures and his figures?

Graham Brady: The systems of accounting in the EU do not allow anybody to see how the system is working or know how the money is spent. When I met Marta Andreasen, she made it clear that that is deliberate, because it suits too many people for the picture on EU expenditure to be opaque.
	The Chancellor of the Exchequer was prompted to call for the Commission to put its house in order. In turn, he was denounced by Peter Mandelson for crude Euro-bashing, and the Minister for Europe attacked Departments whose default setting is to issue press releases attacking Brussels. However, when I asked the Minister for Europe to list those Departments, his brief response to my written question simply said, No. Was the Chancellor serious in his determination to clear up the EU accounts or was it just populist posturing to make it appear that he would be less negligent in dealing with EU fraud than the Prime Minister, if only he were in charge?
	I asked the Minister for Europe what discussions the Foreign Secretary has had with the Chancellor about accounting practices in the EU. The answer stated:
	My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not discussed this matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.[Official Report, 30 November 2004; Vol. 428, c.63W]
	The Chancellor has not spoken to the Foreign Secretary, but perhaps he has taken some advice from Marta Andreasen, the EU's former chief accountant and the whistleblower who knows so much about practices in the EU. When I ask what meetings Treasury Ministers or officials have had with Marta Andreasen in the past year, I get the answer, None. It seems that the Chancellor's real interest in EU fraud is in persuading people that he is doing something about it while he actually does nothing.
	We have real priorities that should be addressed at the Council meeting. The Chancellor has talked about the importance of fraud but has done nothing. We have heard the Prime Minister himself, a great champion of the EU constitution, apparently acceptingwe want to hear an answer from the Minister on thisthat the constitution, which he has already signed but will not bring before the House, is already outdated because it cannot deal with the possibility of Turkish membership. Will the Minister tell us whether that is one of the so-called Turkish delights that the Prime Minister offered to the Germans a couple of days ago?
	The truth is that the Government have not made a proper assessment of the implications of the EU constitution that they are trying to foist on the British people. Even in one of the most obvious areas of concernthe effect on our business competitivenessMinisters cannot give straight answers to the straight questions that I have tabled in the past few weeks.
	The Council meeting may, like so many that have gone before, achieve modest progress on matters of real concern. Moves towards expansion and the opening of talks on Turkish accession are welcomed by the Opposition, but there will not be the leadership and vision that Europe needs if it is to address the real challenges that were set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes and my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks. There will be no moves to achieve the more open, flexible, decentralised Europe that our people want and that Europe needs if it is to survive to enjoy a free, prosperous future.

Denis MacShane: This has been an enjoyable debate. My first debate in the House of Commons was the equivalent debate in 1994, in which the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) sat in my seat as a Europe Minister. I have stayed roughly the same, but it might be fair to say, if one examines his speech of 10 years ago, that he has changed a bit.
	The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) made a fair point about the nature of debate on Europe in this House. Ten years ago, the House was fuller and there were more, shorter interventions. Some of those were tough, but there was not the relentless whinge of negativism that we have heard this afternoon. I wish that we had a mechanismthis is not for me, but for the Leader of the House, for the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and for the usual channelswhereby we could find ways of discussing these issues in more depth. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary tried to do that through the Standing Committee on the Convention on the Future of Europe, which sat while the Convention was carrying out its workthe first time in British parliamentary history that a treaty was discussed and subjected to cross-examination while the negotiations were going on. Alas, not one Conservative Front Bencher bothered to turn up. Until they take the question of Europe seriously instead of reproducing bromides from the Rothermere press, it will be difficult for the House to take seriously their views on Europe.

Graham Brady: Will the Minister give way?

Denis MacShane: I should like to make a little progress.
	The Conservatives can take some comfort, because there is now no question of a plan B, as their plan A is in front of all our eyes. It was ably put forward by Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who said that the European Union is a
	bad idea like slavery, communism and high-rise flats.
	I like the high-rise flatsthe idea of the EU as a super-Trump tower about to bear down upon us. He also says:
	There is nothing right-wing, negative, frightening or extreme about leaving the EU.
	That was plan A. However, it was confirmed more recently at a more senior level by the Leader of the Opposition's former speech writer, now a distinguished MEP, Mr. Daniel Hammill, who headed an article in The Wall Street Journal on 2 December with Is Britain on the Way Out? To his satisfaction, he proved that the answer was yes. The vision he offered was that of another Norway.
	In Oslo, however, Norway is known as a fax democracy because it has implemented more EU directives than the United Kingdom. Every law passed in Switzerland has to conform with EU law and the taxpayers of Norway and Switzerland have to pay hundreds of millions of euros to Brussels. If the Conservative party has a vision of our being out of Europe and somehow having a glorious future separate from the EU, let me make it clear, and let every business know, that it would mean still paying a large cheque to Brussels, still obeying every Brussels directive but having no control over the shape and implementation of the directives. That should be on the record.
	Let us also be clear that the Conservative party's current policy is to put Britain in breach of its treaty obligations. Leaders of the Conservative party have confirmed that they wish to pass national legislation that would put Britain in breach of its current treaty obligations on specific key matters. That means, for the first time in British history, that the United Kingdom would vote to put itself in breach of solemn treaty obligations, either meeting large fines from the European Court of Justice or withdrawing from the EU because of one tiny matter. We all have sympathy for the problems of British fishermen. However, outside the EU, no European country would be obliged to allow British fishermen to land their fish at French or other ports. That shows the frivolity, facetiousness and irresponsibility of the Conservative party's current policy.
	The debate is about the discussions that we will hold tomorrow at the European Council meeting. The House broadly supports the idea that the EU should open negotiations with Turkey without new hurdles, barriers or conditions. We look forward to Croatia taking the European road. I have said that consistently in all my visits to Zagreb. However, we want those accused of terrible war crimes in the 1990s to be made accountable and the entire Croatian state apparatus to work to secure the delivery of Mr. Gotovina to The Hague.
	Croatia and the western Balkans show the fatuousness of the clich that conflict in Europe is no longer thinkable. It was not thinkable 10 or 15 years agocolleagues of all parties would have made such remarks. However, conflict then exploded in our midst, with the consequence of 1 million asylum seekers surging across all our European borders. Why did it happen? It was precisely because of Europe's failure to act and have a coherent common foreign policy. We had the sit-on-the-hands policy of Conservative Foreign Ministers, one of whom will return to the House if the voters of Kensington and Chelsea are foolish enough to vote Conservative at the next election. He will undoubtedly sit on the Opposition Front Bench before long. I look forward to that because I hope that he will go on his knees to the British people to apologise for the disasters of isolationist British foreign policy of the 1990s. That dirge of isolationism was heard in many contributions to today's debate.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) made a speech that contained more metaphors about dogs than the House had ever heard before. It will be read out for ever more at Crufts. We all know and love the right hon. and learned Gentlemanhe is the House's favourite shaggy old Labrador. We have to take him out for a walk every night because we know that if he does not rid himself of his anti-European bile he will be unhappy. He does not believe a word of the rubbishhe had been a liberal pro-European all his life until the Conservative party lately adopted its current wretched policy.
	The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) was right when he said that we should not set the bar any higher for Turkey. He was also right to say that we have to pay serious attention to Ukraine. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) also made that point. What an example Ukraine has set in recent weeks. Once again, people are rising to demand their democratic rights, supported by the united voice of Europe, including High Representative Solana and the Presidents of Poland and Lithuania. Europe has spoken as oneit is not the Europe of conflicting, competing, discordant voices depicted by the Opposition.

William Cash: rose

Denis MacShane: On election monitors, I offered the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady)[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is obvious that the Minister does not intend to give way at the moment.

Denis MacShane: I offered to pay the way for the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West on Boxing day, but it was a tease. We are good friends, I hope, despite our differences at the Dispatch Box, and I can assure him that, having spoken to the leader of our Council of Europe delegation, the Foreign Office will make funds available, not literally for every single hon. Member, but for those who want to go to Ukraine. We want Britain to be there.

Graham Brady: I am grateful to the Minister for the help that he has provided. However, I was referring not just to Members of Parliament but to other British citizens who have volunteered to help in Ukraine but who must meet the costs from their own pockets.

Denis MacShane: We have provided a great deal of money to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe to help to pay for official election observers. I was talking about Members of ParliamentI do not think that I can write a cheque at the Dispatch Box for other British citizens who want to go to Ukraine.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) was, as always, positive. The letter signed by the Prime Minister, Mr. Schrder and Mr. Aznar in 2002 made 10 points, many of which have already been achieved. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend with the details rather than detain the House. I have a special affection for the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), as I represent his parents in the House. I am sorry that he was not in Rotherham last Tuesday when, with His Excellency the French Ambassador, I unveiled a plaque in front of the town hall beside the cannon forged in Rotherham that was used to sink Napoleon's fleet at Trafalgar. However, we have moved on, as the plaque commemorates the 100th anniversary of the entente cordiale:
	Britain and France: Allies in war, friends in peace, partners in Europe, admirers of each other's people and culture.
	I hope that it stands for another 100 years in Rotherham.
	The right hon. Gentleman, however, made an uncharacteristically pessimistic, dark and apocalyptic speech. He told us that it will be difficult to secure a yes vote on the new treaty of Europe. I welcome that suggestion because, unlike the Opposition, who believe that a no vote on Europe is already in the bag, I am not complacent. I prefer to start with a hill to climb, and I am sure that the British people will not resile from this important treaty and isolate themselves from the rest of Europe. We all remember the right hon. Gentleman's winning intervention in the election. He warned the British people that if they voted Labour Britain would become a foreign land. Would he like me to speak French now? Are the people of Rotherham living in a foreign land? Such scaremongering rhetoric is unworthy of his leadership qualities to which, one day, I expect the Conservative party must return.

William Hague: Will the hon. Gentleman respond to an actual point in my speech and explain why Ministers cannot go to the Council of Ministers with an adamant insistence that the hopeless accounting procedures of the European Commission be reformed?

Denis MacShane: That is a perfectly fair point, and I shall deal later with the question of accounting, which was raised by other hon. Members. The right hon. Gentleman's new book, which we are all reading avidly, is, in one sense, about how Britain had to deal with Europe in the past. It was impossible for Britain to act co-operatively with all our European partners because of the divisions and conflicts to which some hon. Members wish to return. The right hon. Gentleman praises William Pitt's
	preference for redesign rather than revolution.
	That is exactly what the new treaty isit is a redesign of the rule book that allows Europe to function. The right hon. Gentleman, however, embraces the revolutionary prospect that Britain should dishonour the treaty that it signed, resile from it and refuse to ratify it. While the Turks want in, the Tories want out. As he comes to reflect on where his once great party will be after the next election, I hope, and I am confident, that like every sane person born in Rotherham, he will be with me on the British side of the debate, in favour of honouring the treaty that our great country has signed.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) took us sensibly into the future Europe of 34 or 35 countries. That is precisely what this treaty seeks to doto allow a Europe that expands to have a sensible rule book. She asked me specifically about whether the President of the Commission could also be the President of the Council. If she reads article I-22, she will see that the task of the President of the Council shall be to work
	in co-operation with the President of the Commission.
	If she then turns to the job description of the Commission, she will read in article III-347 that
	The members of the Commission shall not, during their time of office, engage in any other occupation, whether gainful or not.
	It is therefore stretching the interpretation of the new treaty a bit too far to say that the two posts can be merged into one, when, clearly, under the rule book, they cannot. Her point, however, is important.

Gisela Stuart: With the greatest respect, my hon. Friend is not answering my question. It was not my interpretation. If the Dutch legal services, under the current Dutch presidency, report to their Parliament that, in their legal interpretation, it is a possibility, what is our answer other than saying that we do not agree? Is there any mechanism of pinning that down further?

Denis MacShane: This is a serious problem. Of course, one can find lawyers in The Hague, Berlin, Paris and in every Inn in the Strand who will give an interpretation. I have read out to my satisfactionwhether the House is satisfied will be seenthat the treaty clearly separates the two, and says that one cannot do the other's job. We will have to have that discussion with the Dutch, and I am happy to write to my hon. Friend.
	The right hon. Member for Wells read out a speech, much of which we have heard before. It included an extraordinary attack on article II-73. It is worth reading into Hansard what that article says:
	The arts and scientific research shall be free of constraint. Academic freedom shall be respected.
	I am delighted that that is laid down as a fundamental European value and written into a solemn treaty. Only the Conservative party, with its blind anti-European hostility, could see in that anything other than something for which British academe, British scientists and the House of Commons have fought for a long time.

David Heathcoat-Amory: For the third time of asking, will the Minister for Europe understand the point that I have made, not the point that he would like me to have made? I was not disputing the merits of that right. I was simply pointing out that it is a new right, whereas the pamphlet that he issued said that there were no new rights in the charter of fundamental rights. I was therefore contradicting what his pamphlet said, not disputing the merits of the issue.

Denis MacShane: I am sorry, but it has been a fundamental British right, with which I thought that I grew up, that
	The arts and scientific research shall be free of constraint. Academic freedom shall be respected.
	That is not a new right. It is something for which Britain has always stood and fought. As usual, we are just disagreeing on the issue.
	I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) said that there should be no more free trade in tobacco and alcohol, and that Britain should somehow have an opt-out on the exchange of tobacco across the channel. If I have misinterpreted him, he can correct me.

Kelvin Hopkins: I was merely saying that an opt-out on standardised tobacco duties and free trade would be sensible for a very good reason: we have the right levels of tax and duty, and continental Europe has the wrong levels.

Denis MacShane: Many European countries are moving towards our levels, and we do not have the highest ones. My hon. Friend should think about whether his argument should apply to 24 other countries, whose different sectors might say that they are losing fiscal gain or other advantages because of British goods and services. I can well imagine that some state-subsidised airlines are not keen on competition from easyJet and Ryanair, and he should be careful before he goes down the road that begins to hintI am sure he did not mean itat the kind of protectionism that every socialist has fought against all their lives, and that the Conservative party now seems to be embracing.
	The hon. Member for Banbury asked about the Cotonon agreement, which deals with trade between the EU and the Asian, Pacific and Caribbean countries. He read out an important speech, much of it addressed to colleagues of mine in other Departments. I will ask them to write to him, although I mean no discourtesy: we in the Labour party entirely agree with his substantive point about the need for more debate in Europe.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) listed many of the advantages that we gain from being in the EU. I hope that he circulates them all to his constituents and every other British citizen. They will then realise that there is only one future at the election: voting for the party that supports those advantages, and against the party that wants to stop Britain from enjoying them.
	The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) made a lengthy speech, in which he made his usual points but also revealed the new thinking of the Conservative party. He rightly said that he was against not just this treaty but the one before itand the one before that, and the one before that. He unashamedly used the word withdrawal in announcing that that was where the Conservative party wants Britain to go. What he said in 1992 had become the thinking of many members of the Cabinet by 1997; what he said in 1997 became Tory policy in 2001; what he says today is Tory policy for the future. We need to tell every business man in Britain that that is the Conservative party line: that the Conservatives want to pull us out of our biggest trading bloc.
	As for the important question of errors in the European Commission budget, it is a budget of about 100 billion. As one of my colleagues said, about 1.5 billion of that is contested. Both the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office have drawn attention to lost moneys, accounts that cannot be signed off in Ministries and municipalities, and indeed direct fraud. I do not think that that calls into question the way in which Britain tries to deal with the problems. I fully accept, as do we all, that the EUlike most of its member statescurrently operates a cash-based accounting system rather than the accrual system required in the UK public sector. Our public sector has only recently adopted an accrual system, and we are fighting hard to get the EU to do the same.
	About 85 to 90 per cent. of the EU budget goes back to member states. The complaint is really with Ministries here. Anyone who looks at the accounts in detail will see that some of the payments not just of the countries mentioned, but of Ministries here, cannot be accounted for properly: I fully accept that. In fact, the Commission employs fewer people than the BBCeven the slimmed-down BBCand its budget is about a quarter of the size of the Pentagon's. That is a relatively small amount of money, those are relatively few people, and we have 25 countries co-operating as never before.
	The alternative, of which we have heard from the Conservatives, is the old Europe of conflict, division, confrontation and not seeking to speak with one voice. Every Member knows that in the new treaty we have preserved control over tax, vetoes on foreign policy and defence, and our permanent seat on the Security Council. In the European constitution we have given new powers to Parliament and Government. That is why the French are calling it la constitution anglo-saxon.

Graham Brady: Will the Minister give way?

Denis MacShane: No, I must finish my speech if I am to have time to mention other Members.
	Several Members have referred to a famous speech. I should be grateful for a transcript.

Quentin Davies: Will the Minister give way?

Denis MacShane: The hon. Gentleman is a good friend of mine, but he has only just come into the Chamber.
	As I was saying, I should be grateful for a transcript of that speech. I shall send whoever transcribes it a copy of Miss Lynne Truss's remarkable new book, so that they can put the commas and full stops in the right places. In the speech, I mentioned a telephone call from a distinguished French journalist in Brussels who said Mr. MacShane, you Brits have won. You have an Atlanticist, pro-business Commission President. You have one of the top Commission slots and English is now the language spoken. The constitution, in the view of everybody in France and Germany, was written in London. What comment have you got to make? I said to him, Join the Conservatives, because it is about time they got back to the real world and realised that being in Europe is good for Britain. Signing the new treaty is good for Britain, and the Conservatives will become electable again only if they become sensible on Europe again. I wish them well in that task.

Paul Clark: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PETITIONS
	  
	Rochdale Metro Link

Lorna Fitzsimons: This petition, consisting of the signatures of 6,556 of my constituents, is prompted by the Secretary of State for Transport's statement in July that the planned extension of Rochdale's metro linkknown as phase 3, or the big bangis cancelled. My constituents know that the spiralling costs had to be dealt with, but they regret the way in which the problem has been handled. However, they are grateful for the fact that the Government are now committed to finding a solution and they would like to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) and the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), for their efforts with the working party.
	My constituents think that the recent local transport plan announcement was regrettable and that the Leigh and Rochdale schemes should be granted, as they are totally in keeping with the Government's integrated transport strategy.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Transport to consider further the implications of cancelling the extension of Manchester metro for the outcomes of other Government initiatives, such as housing market renewal, Kingsway business park and the regeneration of Oldham and Rochdale town centres; and urge the Secretary of State to talk to the Deputy Prime Minister about his decision's impact on regeneration in some of the poorest areas in the United Kingdom, and to consult the Exchequer to ensure that the maximum impact of much-needed Government regeneration programmes is not lost.
	To lie upon the Table.

Draycott Manor School

William Cash: The petition of Draycott Manor school is signed by 2,754 parents, pupils, teachers and governors.
	The petition states:
	To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled
	The Humble Petition of the parents, pupils, teachers and governors of Draycott Manor school, in Staffordshire sheweth
	That the Petitioners are against Staffordshire county council's plan to close Draycott Manor school
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the Government to use their influence to persuade Staffordshire county council to reconsider, and to change its plan to close Draycott Manor school and other Staffordshire schools
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	To lie upon the Table.

St. Mildred's School

William Cash: The petition of St. Mildred's school, Whiston, in Staffordshire, consists of 1,150 signatures.
	The petition states:
	To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled
	The Humble Petition of the parents, pupils, teachers and governors of St. Mildred's school, Whiston, in Staffordshire, sheweth
	That the Petitioners are against Staffordshire county council's plan to close St. Mildred's school, Whiston
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the Government to use their influence to persuade Staffordshire county council to reconsider, and to change its plan to close St. Mildred's school and other Staffordshire schools
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	To lie upon the Table.

St. John's School

William Cash: The petition of St. John's school, Alton, consists of 1,400 signatures.
	The petition states:
	To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled
	The Humble Petition of the parents, pupils, teachers and governors of St. John's school, Alton, in Staffordshire, sheweth
	That the Petitioners are against Staffordshire county council's plan to close St. John's school, Alton
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the Government to use their influence to persuade Staffordshire county council to reconsider, and to change its plan to close St. John's school, Alton, and other Staffordshire schools
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	To lie upon the Table.

TENANT FARMERS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Paul Clark.]

Huw Edwards: It is an honour to have the opportunity to address the House on the issue of tenant farmers. Apart from not having the security of the capital value of their land and buildings, tenant farmers are also disadvantaged in a number of ways. I shall deal with some of them, particularly with single farm payments, milk quotas, diversification and tenant farmers' personal housing needs.
	For those wishing to enter farming, having a tenancy may be the only method available, so the role of the tenant sector is important to assist new entrants to the industry. I acknowledge that the issues affecting tenant farmers have been considered by the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, under the chairmanship of Julian Sayers, and I also want to acknowledge the Government's response, which was published last year.
	My recent interest in the subject was prompted by two tenant farmers who attended my constituency advice surgery in Abergavenny. They are dairy producers with a herd of 95 Holstein-Friesians and they also keep sheep. They are Cathy and Nick Sprackling and they run the Ty Mawr farm in Dingestow, near Monmouth. Their concern was with the particular rules governing single farm payments and I will raise the matter briefly here in the House. Because single farm payment is based on three reference years, they were unable, for one reason or another, to submit a claim for sheep annual premium in 2000. As a result, they not only failed to receive that premium, but were further disadvantaged. They wrote to me about their problems and I submitted their letter to the Minister's office today. That was the issue that they came to see me about, and as I discussed with them particular issues affecting tenant farmers I thought of raising these concerns on the Floor of the House.
	They did not have any specific concerns with their own tenancy arrangements and had a high regard for the landlord, Mr. Bosanquet, who I also know well, but they raised important issues that it is right to put to the House. We discussed the price of raw milk, the cost of buying milk quota and especially their concern about future housing. I became intrigued to hear about the problems they faced with regard to housing. Because they are tenants, they will inevitably lose the property that they live in when they decide to retire. In order to find housing, they have currently taken out a mortgage to buy a property in the town of Monmouth, knowing that they will have to let it out until the time at which they retire. They are able to secure only a buy-to-let mortgage, which means that they are being further penalised. They are not going into rented propertya second homein order to make profit. It is all about security for the future.
	I understand that, traditionally, tenant farmers often sold their stock to secure sufficient funds to buy a property, often in the countryside if that was their choice, but that possibility is now largely ruled out because of both the relatively low value of stock and the relatively high price of country properties. I was particularly concerned to hear about the way in which they were being disadvantaged in the housing market and I wondered whether mechanisms could be introduced to help people who have difficulty getting affordable housing. Right hon. and hon. Members who represent rural constituencies know of the great difficulties in being able to live in such areas. My constituency of Monmouthshire is an area of very high property prices.
	One initiative that I know about in Monmouth is called the shared equity scheme, which is being introduced by a private developer, Lovell, in conjunction with the housing association. Effectively, people buy half the house and the other half is kept by the housing association. It makes housing far more affordable. I wondered whether such schemes could be made available to people in rural areas and I was very pleased to hear that a charity called ARC Addington has such a scheme. Its strategic rural housing scheme allows applicants to choose a property and location. That property is then rented back to them, or made available for purchase under a shared equity arrangement.
	My constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Sprackling, were penalised by having to secure a buy-to-let mortgage, and they tell me that the taxman will penalise them again by treating the rent from their property as unearned income. They believe that it would be fairer to treat that property as their main residence, and to regard any rental income as earned income.
	There are not a great many tenant farmers in my constituency, but they do exist. To its credit, Monmouthshire county council has about 50 tenanted farms. The scheme governing county council farms was established after the first world war. It allowed local authorities to rent land to farmers as a way of helping men coming back from the war. It was a farms fit for heroes scheme, to go alongside the homes fit for heroes scheme introduced at that time.
	In many rural areas, pockets of council houses were built after the Housing Act 1919 made it possible for rural and agricultural workers, and others on low incomes, to live in the countryside. That opportunity has largely been lost as a result of right to buy, as many of the properties involved have gone into the private sector.
	One important function of the tenant sector is to allow new entrants to come into the farming industry. However, the Tenant Farmers Association has highlighted the challenges facing new entrants to farming, and called for policies that help rather than hinder their progress. The TFA has always championed the cause of new entrants. Tenancies are the principle mechanisms by which new tenants access the industry, and the TFA is keen to ensure that a strong supply of tenancies remains available to new entrants. Local authorities may be able to continue the traditional role of having tenant farms, but the indications are that they are more likely to divest themselves of their estates than to invest in buying land for tenant farmers.
	One way to encourage more entrants into the industry would be to increase the opportunity for people to retire from it. There has been much talk about that in recent years. I well remember the crisis of the late 1990s, when I attended packed meetings with the former Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, now Lord Livesey. Many farmers wished that they had the opportunity to get out of the industry. Early retirement schemes have been available in many other professions and public-sector occupations, and it would not be unreasonable for a similar scheme to apply to the farming sector.
	As a result of the inquiries that I have made and the parliamentary questions that I have submitted to the Government, I understand that progress on this matter has been very slow. The TFA has urged the Government to implement a commitment in the new manifesto to develop a scheme allowing people to retire from the industry so that they can make way for others.
	The Welsh Assembly has also discussed this matter. It was said that implementing an early retirement scheme was inhibited either by the constraints imposed by the EU, or by the Assembly's limited powers, but I hope that the Government will continue to consider the possibility.
	Diversification is another issue that affects tenant farmers. The TFA has highlighted the problem that some tenants face when considering diversification. Business advisers often suggest that farmers consider diversification as an option for business development, but it is not always appreciated that tenant farmers may not be able to take advantage of diversification because of the restrictions that apply under tenancy legislation, and in their tenancy contracts.
	The chief executive of the TFA, George Dunn, has said:
	Most agricultural tenants will require the consent of their landlords before embarking on a non-agricultural project on let land. If such a project would add to the profitability of a tenant's business and help to sustain the level of rent, it would seem clear that the landlord should support it. However, some landlords insist on the observance of 'agricultural only' clauses which appear in tenancy agreements and take a negative attitude to tenants' plans to diversify.
	A survey by the TFA discovered that on traditional lettings under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, tenants reported that 53 per cent. of landlords had taken or would take a negative attitude to the carrying out of non-agricultural activities on let land. However, other research commissioned by the Country Land and Business Association suggests that landlords are more favourably disposed to support tenants wishing to diversify96 per cent. of all landlords surveyed by the CLBA would grant consent if asked by their tenant, subject only to reasonable terms to protect the landlord's interest and the value of the land. Examples of diversification include cafes, boat moorings, caravan sites and Christmas tree growing. Those and other forms of diversification have been encouraged. In fact, they have been a necessity in agriculture in recent years.
	Concern has increased over reports that some landlords, including traditional landlords, are taking the opportunity, where available, to bring existing farm tenancies to an end as a lever to extract concessions from tenants on any single farm payment entitlement that might be established. Where that happens, it appears to be very unreasonable. I have not personally come across any cases in my constituency, but I know that it has been a concern of those who represent tenant farmers. In order to avoid that serious problem occurring, the TFA is putting pressure on the Government to introduce a statutory code for the tenant to be able to enforce a valuation of the entitlement at the end of the tenancy if he does not want to take it away with him. That would then be passed to the landlord for allocation to an incoming tenant in return for the compensation settled. That method would be similar to the provisions contained in legislation that provides compensation to tenants for milk quota or other end-of-tenancy claims on improvements.
	Speaking to my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Sprackling, I was concerned to hear about the problems they have with the price of raw milk. They currently receive 17.2p per litre for raw milk, which is a slight increase on the average price for last year. However, they and other tenant farmers in similar situations cannot make a profit at that price. While we all acknowledge that consumers get a good deal when they go to a supermarket and buy six pints of milk for 1.24 or a little more, the worry is how little the farmers get. Several dairy farmers in my constituency have given up in recent years because of the problems faced by the dairy sector.
	Together with other hon. Members, I have supported the call for a new strengthened supermarket code of practice. The current code of practice was introduced following the report by the Welsh Affairs Committee on the livestock industry. After publication, we made representations to the Office of Fair Trading that a code of practice be introduced. It was introduced, but on a voluntary basis. There is a strong argument for strengthening it and possibly placing it on a statutory basis.
	I am sure that all hon. Members would acknowledge that the tenant farming sector plays an important role, especially for those coming into the industry. The Government have been active in working with all parts of the industry to ensure that the concerns of tenant farmers are addressed and that they are not disadvantaged. We must all support tenant farming and help it flourish, as well as recognising that some of the disadvantages faced by tenant farmers must be addressed.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) for securing this debate and I congratulate him on taking up the cudgels on behalf of tenant farmers. Tenant farmers have long been and remain an integral part of the UK agriculture industry and the social fabric of our rural communities. Before the first world war, 90 per cent. of agricultural land in England and Wales was tenanted. Today, the figure is nearer 33 per cent.
	Despite the reduction in scale, the tenanted sector continues to make an important contribution to farming in several ways. It allows people to farm without the capital needed to buy land. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, that is the only way into the industry for many people. The sector also provides opportunities for new and younger entrants to the industry to ensure a dynamic and vibrant future for farming.
	That is especially important, given the ageing farming populationalthough I am not sure that the word ageing is accurate. The average age of farmers is 59, and, although that may seem old, when we look at the statistics we find that it was much the same immediately after the war. The farming population is ageing in the sense that we are all ageing, but the extent to which its profile is changing is open to a little more discussion. The industry is certainly changing and it faces a variety of challenges. It is frequently more difficult for older farmers to adjust to changes at a time of transition such as the present, so the current opportunities are relevant. The tenancy option offers landowners and tenants the flexibility to let or rent land according to individual needs.
	As part of our strategy for a sustainable food and farming industry, the Government have made clear our commitment to encouraging a viable and prosperous future for the tenanted sector.

Roger Williams: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: I am not sure of the protocol, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not aware that intervention by a third party is possible.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is entirely up to the Minister whether he chooses to give way.

Alun Michael: I will give way to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), but I am rather surprised that he is making an intervention without notice.

Roger Williams: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to you and to the Minister. I was told that the debate could continue until half-past seven, so I thought that I might make a contribution. May I encourage the Minister to say something about single farm payments for new entrants, especially tenant farmers? It is a UK scheme and many new entrants and business builders are concerned.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is not a new Member and my understanding of the protocol is that if a third party wishes to speak they have to seek permission from both the Member instigating the debate and the Minister, but that may merely be politeness rather than a requirement of the House. I shall certainly be addressing the issues that were raised, including single farm payments

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should clarify that that would be the case if a speech was being made, rather than an intervention.

Alun Michael: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. We learn something every day.
	I was pointing out the importance of the tenant farmer sector, before I turned to the specific points that my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth raised on behalf of his constituents. If, as we want to do through the strategy for food and sustainable farming, we are committed to ensuring a viable and prosperous future for the tenanted sector it is important that we ensure that tenant farmers are able to adapt to the changing circumstances in agriculture and take advantage of emerging possibilities.
	Farmers today can no longer rely on food production, or food production supported by subsidy-related production, as the sole means of earning their income. Diversification from traditional agricultural activities is often essential to ensure the sustainability and prosperity of a farm business. Greater awareness of the need to protect the environment has led to changes in the way in which land is farmed and managed.
	Tenant farmers have often been hampered in adapting to those changes due to the legislative framework and the structure of agricultural tenancies, which relates directly to one of my hon. Friend's points. That is why, at the end of 2002, Lord Whitty and I asked the Tenancy Reform Industry Group to look at the way forward for tenancy reform. I am pleased that my hon. Friend noted the work of the group, led by Julian Sayers. The TFA made a constructive contribution to that work.
	The main features of the group's recommendations were proposals for changes to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 and the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995. At the end of September, the Government issued a consultation document on a regulatory reform order on tenancy reform, which, if adopted, will implement all the proposals for legislative change made by the Tenancy Reform Industry Group. The proposed amendments to the legislation will create a more flexible framework for agricultural lettings and enable tenant farmers to take greater advantage of the opportunities presented by diversification and agri-environment activities.
	Specifically, the amendments would allow tenant farmers to include income from diversified activities, carried out with the consent of the landlord, in the eligibility criteria for succession to a tenancy. They would allow the simplification of procedures relating to succession to a tenancy on retirement. They would provide for greater flexibility for landlords and tenants to reach agreement on rent reviews and end-of-tenancy compensation. They would also make it easier for landlords and tenants to agree to restructure a holding without jeopardising the status of the tenancy. Each of these points is important not only for the future of the tenanted sector but for the capacity of individuals to move on from a tenancy. My hon. Friend is right to say that that is sometimes a challenge and a problem.
	The consultation period on the regulatory reform order ends this month and I hope that the amended legislation will come into force at the end of 2005. In addition to working on changes to legislation, the Government have worked with the Tenancy Reform Industry Group to produce a code of good practice for agri-environment schemes and diversification projects within agricultural tenancies. The code will assist landlords and tenants in reaching agreement on diversification and agri-environment projects. We have agreed to back up the code by providing funding for an adjudication scheme to consider cases where landlords and tenants have been unable to reach agreement.
	The fresh start initiative that Lord Whitty launched at the Smithfield show earlier this month will benefit all farmers. Many of its measures will be particularly relevant to tenant farmers, and draw on the structural recommendations proposed by the tenancy reform industry group. In particular, fresh start addresses the problems of farmers considering retirement. Representatives of tenant farmers have lobbied strongly for an early retirement scheme under the England rural development programme, which my hon. Friend mentioned. The Government are not convinced that this would be good value for money, and money would have to be diverted from other grant schemes that are providing valuable public benefits, such as the agri-environment schemes.
	We are aware that there is a particular problem for tenant farmers in finding suitable accommodation for their retirement. Tenant farmers want to be able to retire in rural areasin other words, to be able to live where they have lived and worked all their lives. I think that that has been dealt with in general by ensuring that more affordable homes are built in rural areas.
	In referring to that and referring specifically to his constituents' experience, my hon. Friend referred to the work of ARC Addington, which has offered interesting and constructive ideas on shared equity. A few months ago, its director made a presentation to the rural affairs forum for England, which I chaired and which was also attended by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, and I understand that there are proposals with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on that type of model.
	Shared equity is one of the ways of ensuring that affordable housing is not only provided but remains and can be recycled for future generations, whether that be 30 years onthe next generationor, as sometimes happens with affordable housing, on a 10-year cycle, so the benefits of that model could be considerable. My understanding is that some elements of the proposal could be accommodated within existing arrangements but others would require changes.
	Affordable housing in rural areas is the issue that leads to the problems; if there was sufficient affordable houses it would not be as difficult for people to find accommodation. I met the director of the Housing Corporation recently, and received very strong assurances that it will do what it has done over the past few years, which is to exceed the targets set out in the rural White Paper for the provision of social housing in rural areas. I know that colleagues at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have proposed a number of measures, particularly in relation to planning, that will assist in the provision of specific opportunities at the local level. We are often talking about the very smallest of communitiesthose under 3,000and we are also talking about arrangements where the exceptions policy has been very constructive in recent years; that policy will continue.

Huw Edwards: My right hon. Friend mentions the Housing Corporation. He will know, as a Welsh Member of Parliament and a former First Minister, that there is no equivalent body in WalesTai Cymru ended when the Assembly was establishedand I am not aware of any equivalent initiative, certainly not in the rural area of Wales that I represent.

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is well aware that I am not replying on devolved issues. Such matters are the Assembly's responsibility, as is the issue that he raises in relation to his constituentsMr. and Mrs. Spracklingmissing the sheep premium application date in 2000. He kindly gave me notice of that question. They applied to the National Assembly to have the year 2000 disregarded, but they have been told that the application cannot be reconsidered. As I say, that is a matter for the National Assembly, rather than for DEFRA, but I understand that the case did not meet the criteria of either exceptional circumstances or force majeuretwo principles that I am now very used to when dealing with applications and appeals in England. The European rules under which we work in providing support to farmers include some strict requirements that must be met.
	I believe that it is also the case that issues such as the introduction of a retirement scheme would come within the ambit of the National Assembly for Wales as devolved matters, as they would be the Welsh equivalents of those elements that are contained in the England rural development programme, but I will confirm that to my hon. Friend in writing because I was not able to check that point during the debate.
	As my hon. Friend rightly said, the representatives of tenant farmers have lobbied strongly for an early retirement scheme under the England rural development programme. We are not convinced that such a scheme would be good value for moneypresumably, an equivalent judgment is being made in Walesbut we are aware of the problem that tenant farmers face in finding accommodation. We are committed to ensuring that more affordable homes are provided.
	It is true to say that the sweeping changes of CAP reform will affect agriculture entirely, as well as the wider rural community, but a time of change is also a time of opportunity, and we want to make sure that tenant farmers are able to take advantage of the opportunities opened up by CAP reform.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made it clear in her speech to the annual general meeting of the National Farmers Union earlier in the year that we understand tenant farmers' worries that they might find themselves disadvantaged as a result of the implementation of the single payment. Therefore, in all our decisions on CAP reform, we have been careful to examine the effects on both tenant farmers and landlords. We have made it clear that CAP reform should not be allowed to distort the balance of advantage in favour of either landlords or tenants.
	Many tenants are concerned about what will happen to the allocations of single payment entitlement at the end of tenancy. The Tenancy Reform Industry Group has been helpful in providing a guidance note both for landlords and tenants that gives advice on the issue. That has been well received. As the implementation of CAP reform progresses, the Government will monitor closely the impact on landlord and tenant relationships. We will keep in close touch with the representatives of tenant farmers, who do an excellent job in lobbying on behalf of their members.
	More specifically, DEFRA has invited tenders for specific research that will examine the impact of CAP reform on the diversification activities of tenant farmers, as well as looking at the wider impact of CAP reform on the landlord-tenant relationship. That research will be carried out in two parts during 2005 and 2006, and those involved will report to the Government at the end of 2006.
	To conclude, protecting the interests of tenant farmers has been a key issue in the Government's agriculture agenda. We value the diversity that tenant farmers bring to farming. We have acted through the industry group to try to correct some of the anomalies that disadvantage tenant farmers, and our aim is ensure that the sector maintains and enhances its place in the agricultural community.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Seven o'clock